Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023;91(1):105-114.
doi: 10.3233/JAD-220604.

Dyadic Discrete Choice Experiments Enable Persons with Dementia and Informal Caregivers to Participate in Health Care Decision Making: A Mixed Methods Study

Joost D Wammes  1 , Joffre D Swait  2   3 , Esther W de Bekker-Grob  2   3 , Joan K Monin  4 , Nanon H M Labrie  5 , Janet L MacNeil Vroomen  1
Affiliations

Dyadic Discrete Choice Experiments Enable Persons with Dementia and Informal Caregivers to Participate in Health Care Decision Making: A Mixed Methods Study

Joost D Wammes et al. J Alzheimers Dis. 2023.

Abstract

Background: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) may facilitate persons with dementia and informal caregivers to state care preferences. DCEs can be cognitively challenging for persons with dementia.

Objective: This study aims to design a dementia friendly dyadic DCE that enables persons with dementia and informal caregivers to provide input individually and jointly, by testing the number of attributes and choice tasks persons with dementia can complete and providing insight in their DCE decision-making process.

Methods: This study included three DCE rounds: 1) persons with dementia, 2) informal caregivers, and 3) persons with dementia and informal caregivers together. A flexible DCE design was employed, with increasing choice task complexity to explore cognitive limitations in decision-making. Summary statistics and bivariate comparisons were calculated. A qualitative think-aloud approach was used to gain insight in the DCE decision-making processes. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Fifteen person with dementia, 15 informal caregiver, and 14 dyadic DCEs were conducted. In the individual DCE, persons with dementia completed six choice tasks (median), and 80% could complete a choice task with least three attributes. In the dyadic DCE persons with dementia completed eight choice tasks (median) and could handle slightly more attributes. Qualitative results included themes of core components in DCE decision-making such as: understanding the choice task, attribute and level perception, option attractiveness evaluation, decision rule selection, and preference adaptation.

Conclusion: Persons with dementia can use simple DCE designs. The dyadic DCE was promising for dyads to identify overlapping and discrepant care preferences while reaching consensus.

Keywords: Care preferences; Think aloud study; dementia; health services; informal caregivers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ disclosures available online (https://www.j-alz.com/manuscript-disclosures/22-0604r1).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Number of attributes and choice tasks completed by individual scores on the Telephone Interview Cognitive Screening in participants with dementia.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K (2012) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: A review of the literature. Health Econ 21, 145–172. - PubMed
    1. Soekhai V, de Bekker-Grob EW, Ellis AR, Vass CM (2019) Discrete choice experiments in health economics: Past, present and future. Pharmacoeconomics 37, 201–226. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press.
    1. Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press.
    1. Lancsar E, Louviere J (2008) Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: A user’s guide. Pharmacoeconomics 26, 661–677. - PubMed

Publication types