Clients and professionals elicit long-term care preferences by using 'What matters to me': A process evaluation in the Netherlands.

Background: 'What matters to me' is a five-category preference elicitation tool to assist clients and professionals in choosing long-term care. This study aimed to evaluate the use of and experiences with this tool.

Methods: A mixed-method process evaluation was applied.

Proposal for a Framework to Enable Elicitation of Preferences for Clients in Need of Long-Term Care.

Purpose: Collaborative deliberation comprises personal engagement, recognition of alternative actions, comparative learning, preference elicitation, and preference integration. Collaborative deliberation may be improved by assisting preference elicitation during shared decision-making. This study proposes a framework for preference elicitation to facilitate collaborative deliberation in long-term care consultations.

What matters to me - a web-based preference elicitation tool for clients in long-term care: a user-centred design.

Background: During the process of decision-making for long-term care, clients are often dependent on informal support and available information about quality ratings of care services. However, clients do not take ratings into account when considering preferred care, and need assistance to understand their preferences. A tool to elicit preferences for long-term care could be beneficial.

Getting to grips with the process of decision-making in long-term care. Descriptive cases illustrate the chaotic reality of the construction of preferences.

Background: Clients facing decision-making for long-term care are in need of support and accessible information. Construction of preferences, including context and calculations, for clients in long-term care is challenging because of the variability in supply and demand. This study considers clients in four different sectors of long-term care: the nursing and care of the elderly, mental health care, care of people with disabilities, and social care.

Improving screening and brief intervention activities in primary health care: Secondary analysis of professional accuracy based on the AUDIT-C.

Introduction And Objective: The ODHIN trial found that training and support and financial reimbursement increased the proportion of patients that were screened and given advice for their heavy drinking in primary health care. However, the impact of these strategies on professional accuracy in delivering screening and brief advice is underresearched and is the focus of this paper.

Method: From 120 primary health care units (24 in each jurisdiction: Catalonia, England, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden), 746 providers participated in the baseline and the 12-week implementation periods.