This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

CIHR funded proposals with peer-review reports (Canada) (43) Supporting Informal Care and Caregivers (293) Participatory Research Protocols and Proposals (140) Home Care (170) Aging in Place (283)

Published on in Vol 12 (2023)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/53150, first published .
Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care

Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care

Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care

Authors of this article:

Sabrina Guay-Bélanger1 Author Orcid Image ;   Emmanuelle Aubin1 Author Orcid Image ;   Marie Cimon1 Author Orcid Image ;   Patrick Archambault1, 2, 3, 4 Author Orcid Image ;   Virginie Blanchette1, 5 Author Orcid Image ;   Anik Giguere1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Amédé Gogovor1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Michèle Morin1, 3, 6 Author Orcid Image ;   Ali Ben Charif7 Author Orcid Image ;   Nouha Ben Gaied8 Author Orcid Image ;   Julie Bickerstaff9 Author Orcid Image ;   Nancy Chénard10 Author Orcid Image ;   Julie Emond10 Author Orcid Image ;   Julie Gilbert11 Author Orcid Image ;   Isabelle Violet12 Author Orcid Image ;   France Légaré1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (2) Metrics

    Protocol

    1VITAM - Centre de recherche en santé durable, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, QC, Canada

    2Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    3Centre de recherche intégrée pour un système apprenant en santé et services sociaux, Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, QC, Canada

    4Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    5Department of Human Kinetics and Podiatric Medicine, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada

    6Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    7CubecXpert, Quebec, QC, Canada

    8Fondation Berthiaume-Du Tremblay, Montreal, QC, Canada

    9L’Appui pour les proches aidants, Montreal, QC, Canada

    10Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, QC, Canada

    11Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale, Quebec, QC, Canada

    12Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec, Quebec, QC, Canada

    Corresponding Author:

    France Légaré, MSc, MD, PhD, CCFP

    VITAM - Centre de recherche en santé durable

    Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale

    2480, Chemin de la Canardière, room 223

    Quebec, QC, G1J 2G1

    Canada

    Phone: 1 1 418 663 5313 ext 12273

    Email: france.legare@fmed.ulaval.ca


    Background: Older adults (people aged 65 years and older) face many difficult decisions. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can help them and their families make informed value-congruent decisions. Some PtDAs have been developed for the home care context, but little is known about scaling them for use with older adults in a different culture.

    Objective: This study aims to (1) assess the scalability of existing PtDAs for older adults in the home care context; (2) prioritize those that best match the decisional needs of older adults in home care; and (3) culturally adapt the prioritized PtDAs so they can be scaled successfully to the Quebec health care system.

    Methods: This multimethod study includes 3 phases. All phases will be overseen by a steering committee of older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers, community organization representatives, and researchers with the needed expertise. In phase 1, we will use the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire, a validated scalability self-assessment tool, to assess the scalability of 33 PtDAs previously identified in a systematic review. Based on their scalability, their quality (based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards), and the importance of the decision point, we will retain approximately a third of these. In phase 2, we will conduct a 2-round web-based Delphi to prioritize the PtDAs selected in phase 1. Using a snowball recruitment strategy, we aim to recruit 60 Delphi participants in the province of Quebec, including older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers involved in home care services, and PtDA experts. In the first round, we will ask participants to rate the importance of several PtDA decision points according to various criteria such as prevalence and difficulty on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Approximately 6 of the highest-rated PtDAs will be retained for presentation in the second round, and we will select up to 3 PtDAs judged as having the highest priority for cultural adaptation. In phase 3, using the Chenel framework and user-centered design methods, we will update and adapt the PtDAs to the Quebec health care system and integrate these PtDAs into an interprofessional shared decision-making training program for home care teams. The adapted PtDAs will respect the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria.

    Results: This study was funded in March 2022 by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data collection for the web-based Delphi began in October 2023. Results are expected to be published in May 2024.

    Conclusions: This project will provide relevant and culturally appropriate decision support tools for older adults making difficult decisions and their home care teams that will be ready for scaling across the province of Quebec.

    International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/53150

    JMIR Res Protoc 2023;12:e53150

    doi:10.2196/53150

    Keywords

    shared decision making; patient-centered care; home care; older adults; caregivers; decision aids; scalability assessment; innovation scalability self-administered questionnaire; interprofessional; team based 


    In Canada, the number of people aged 65 years or older has tripled over the past 40 years, and the current population is expected to grow by 68% by 2037 [1]. In the province of Quebec, Canada, people aged 65 years or older represent 21% of the population and should reach 26% by 2041 [2,3]. While 6.5% of all adults have received home care services in Quebec, this proportion rises to 28% among adults aged 75 years or older [4]. Thus, the demand for health and social services for older adults within the context of home care is likely to increase in the coming years. As older adults lose their autonomy and face increasing health problems, health decisions become more frequent as well as more difficult and decisions faced within the home care context present specific challenges [5].

    Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process whereby clinical teams support individuals and their families to make informed health and social care decisions based on the best evidence and what matters most to them [6,7]. It fosters informed consent [8] and improves care experiences [9,10], health outcomes [10-12], clinical team well-being, and efficiency [13,14]. SDM also reduces the uptake of unproven treatments and, consequently, reduces health care waste [15]. It supports health equity, since the most vulnerable may benefit the most [16-18]. Finally, SDM has been adapted to and successfully tested in the home care context among interprofessional teams [19-21]. It was shown that home care interprofessional teams trained in SDM, along with older adults and their caregivers who had benefited from a decision aid, were more likely to share decisions together about housing transitions [19,20,22-24].

    Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are tools that support people in defining the decision to be made, provide information regarding options and outcomes, and help clarify personal values and preferences [25]. They have been successfully used to bolster SDM [26] and to promote the involvement of family members in health decisions [19]. They have been shown to increase participants’ knowledge, decrease their decisional conflict, and reduce the number of people who were passive or undecided in decision-making. They also improve patient‐clinician communication and patient satisfaction with their decisions [16,18,27].

    However, the uptake of SDM and PtDAs in Canada has been disappointing [15]. In a 2018 survey of 1591 Canadians, only 36% of older adults reported that they were always or often offered choices, and only 35% were always or often asked what was important to them. Among them, 8.9% reported receiving home care services, and results showed that they were the least engaged in decisions about their health [28]. In order to address this inequity in decision support, we conducted 2 pan-Canadian surveys and found that older adults in the home care context face numerous difficult decisions that fall under 3 main areas: housing and safety, managing health conditions, and end-of-life care [5,29]. In another survey, health care professionals reported that older adults and their family members needed more help in obtaining information about available options, dealing with peer pressure, and navigating the health care system [30].

    We hypothesize that widespread uptake of PtDAs will be more likely if they are adapted to the context in which they will be used [31-33]. Most PtDAs are created to target 1 decision point, 1 defined population, and 1 context or health care system, but when they are scaled to further contexts, they rarely address the specificities of the stakeholders or health care systems into which they will be integrated. Rather than creating a new PtDA for each context, the adaptation of existing PtDAs has numerous benefits: it reduces the duplication of development efforts, optimizes the use of resources, improves relevance and applicability, and engages knowledge users in target locations [34].

    Therefore, we propose the ENGAGE (Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams) study: an integrated knowledge mobilization (iKM) scaling project whose aim is to assess the scalability of existing home care PtDAs, prioritize them in relation to the decisional needs of older adults in home care, and culturally adapt them so they can be scaled successfully to the Quebec health care system.


    Overview of Study Design and Context

    The ENGAGE study is a multimethod study with 3 phases: (1) a scalability assessment, (2) the prioritization of existing PtDAs, and (3) cultural adaptation of the most relevant PtDAs to the specificities of the stakeholders and the Quebec health care system. Each phase will use a distinct methodology to meet the objectives.

    The ENGAGE study will be conducted within the Quebec health and social care system, 1 of 14 independent health and social care systems in Canada. Each of these systems (1 in each province or territory and 1 at the federal level) is responsible for coordinating, insuring, and managing care and services for the population. Within Quebec, health care services, including home care services, are provided by 18 regional authorities [15,35]. Since the province of Quebec has its own health care system and regulations, and its population is mostly French speaking, PtDAs need careful and culturally sensitive translation and need to be adapted to the Quebec situation, for example, include options available specifically in Quebec, to ensure their uptake by the population [36].

    Throughout the project, we will use an iKM approach to strengthen our partnerships with knowledge users and other interested parties [37]. We will form a steering committee of 8-10 persons to oversee the operationalization of the project. The committee will involve older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers in health organizations offering home care services, representatives of community organizations offering services to older adults and caregivers, and representatives of the provincial health ministry. The committee will also include researchers with the expertise needed to conduct the project, that is, experts in PtDAs, the interprofessional SDM approach, Delphi design, scaling, and research with older adults receiving home care services. We will recruit the committee through our networks in 2 regional health authorities (1 rural and 1 urban). We will organize at least 6 meetings over the course of the project to ensure the engagement of committee members in all phases of the project. We will also send quarterly newsletters to all knowledge users and partners to inform them of the project’s progress. We will remain attentive to the needs of the knowledge users and will respect the constraints of the managers and workers in the clinical settings as well as the older adults and their families. We will also contribute to capacity building by including trainees in all phases of this project. Finally, considerations of sex, gender, equity, diversity, and inclusion will be considered at all stages of the project using the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) guidelines [38,39].

    To ensure accurate reporting of the iKM approach, we will report results using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) checklist [40]. We will also report on the adaptation of PtDAs according to the Guidance for Reporting Intervention Development Studies in Health Research (GUIDED) checklist [41].

    Phase 1: Scalability Assessment of the Existing PtDAs

    We recently completed a systematic review of PtDAs developed for home care [42]. For them to reach the largest proportion of people who can benefit from them, PtDAs for home care use must be analyzed for their scalability. Scalability is the ability of a health innovation that has demonstrated effectiveness under controlled conditions to be expanded in real-life circumstances to reach a larger proportion of the eligible population while still maintaining effectiveness [43]. Our team developed and tested the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ), a validated evaluation tool for assessing the scaling potential of health innovations that is designed to be used by teams planning to scale health and social services innovations [44,45]. ISSaQ is a list of 37 items covering 12 essential components of scalability, such as evidence on the effectiveness of the innovation, its characteristics, its acceptability, its adaptability, and the quantifiable costs and benefits of scaling (Multimedia Appendix 1, in French only). We will therefore use the ISSaQ to assess the scalability of each of the 33 PtDAs developed for home care that were identified in our systematic review [42].

    First, we will retrieve all available information on each of the PtDAs included in our systematic review by searching for publications. A total of 2 team members will then independently extract the characteristics of the PtDAs (eg, type, purpose, decision point, target population) and complete the ISSaQ scalability assessment grid for all 33 PtDAs identified in the literature [42]. Any disagreements will be discussed with a third team member to reach a consensus. The results will be synthesized and discussed with the steering committee. Given the large number of PtDAs identified in the literature review (n=33), the steering committee will then select approximately one-third of the PtDAs based on the relevance of the decision point to home care for older adults in the experience of the steering committee, their scalability, and their quality according to the international criteria established by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration [46]. In order to reach a consensus on the final selection, steering committee members will vote according to all 3 criteria mentioned above, and PtDAs receiving the highest number of votes will be selected for the next phase.

    Phase 2: Prioritization of PtDAs Selected in Phase 1

    Study Design

    We will conduct a web-based Delphi (e-Delphi) study to prioritize the PtDAs selected in phase 1 [47]. The RAND research organization at the University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) appropriateness method will be used to judge the prioritization and relevance of the selected PtDAs (maximum of 10 PtDAs) [48]. The decision point criteria deemed necessary for prioritization will be determined by the steering committee. These criteria could include, for example, the prevalence of the decision addressed by the PtDAs, the level of difficulty of the decision, the date at which the evidence was updated, and its potential for scale-up. A questionnaire will then be developed that addresses the various decision point criteria identified as priorities.

    Delphi Participants
    Recruitment

    We aim to recruit 60 participants in the province of Quebec for this phase of the study to ensure a minimum of 40 participants in both rounds of the e-Delphi study [49,50]. We will use a snowball recruitment strategy, a nonprobability sampling method whereby study participants are asked to recruit future participants from among their social networks [51]. We will recruit older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers involved in home care services (eg, home care team managers, directors of community organizations, managers of health care organizations, and government deputy health ministers or advisers), researchers, and PtDA experts. We aim to recruit a minimum of 8 to 12 participants for each of these categories to ensure representativeness [49]. Inclusion criteria for older adults will be as follows: (1) aged 65 years or older; (2) has home care experience; (3) can participate in the specified timeframe; (4) can read and understand French; and (5) can give informed consent. Inclusion criteria for other categories of participants will be the same except for the following: (1) aged 18 years or older and (2) has home care experience as a caregiver, health professional, decision maker, or expert. We plan to recruit participants using the snowball method with the help of our steering committee members, partners, and knowledge users.

    Older Adults and Caregivers

    We will ask our partners about the possibility of recruiting potential candidates from their organizations. Our partners in relevant organizations will be invited to share the invitation email with their members and through their social media platforms. The clinical teams in home care working for 2 regional health and social service authorities (1 rural and 1 urban) will also be invited to share the invitation with the older adults and caregivers they meet during their home care appointments. If necessary, with the agreement of the potential participants, the names and telephone numbers of interested individuals may be shared with the research team so that a team member can contact them, explain the project further, and invite them to participate.

    Health Care Professionals

    Health care professionals will be recruited with the help of managers from the 2 regional health and social services authorities. We will ask them to distribute an invitation email to the health professionals in their organizations. If necessary, we will contact home care managers in other health authorities in the province of Quebec.

    Decision Makers

    We will solicit our partners who are already in decision-making roles to disseminate the invitation within their networks and help us identify other decision makers.

    Other Experts

    Finally, members of our research team and collaborating teams will circulate the invitation by email to their respective networks to help us identify potential PtDA experts who can manifest their interest by contacting the team members responsible for the study.

    We will make sure all participants understand our research objectives as we prepare and oversee the information provided to them. With a concern for equity, we will also solicit older adults and family members in rural areas, whom we will reach in person if necessary.

    Data Collection

    The e-Delphi consensus study will be conducted over the web using the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Vanderbilt University) tools hosted at Université Laval [52,53]. Participants will read and sign a consent form in the REDCap platform before completing the questionnaire. We anticipate that 2 rounds will allow for an acceptable degree of agreement on the PtDAs to be prioritized. There will be an interval of approximately 3 weeks between the 2 questionnaires. Participants who do not have easy access to a computer will be invited to complete the questionnaire during an in-person meeting with a research assistant. For each round, participants will be asked to submit their completed questionnaire within 2 weeks. An email reminder will be sent 48 hours before the end of the 2-week period. In the first round, we will collect participants’ sociodemographic information such as age, sex, gender, and education level. For each of the PtDAs selected in phase 1 (maximum of 10 PtDAs), we will present the main characteristics of the PtDAs (eg, decision point addressed, year, and country of development) and an image of each PtDA. Then we will ask participants to rate the PtDA according to the decision point criteria prioritized by the steering committee (eg, prevalence of the decision, level of difficulty of the decision, and potential for scale-up) included in the questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Participants will also be able to add free-text comments. We will calculate the overall scores and summarize free-text comments. Results will be synthesized and discussed with the steering committee. The highest-rated PtDAs will be retained for the next round (approximately 6 PtDAs).

    In the second round, we will repeat the same procedure, but only the PtDAs prioritized in the first round will be presented (approximately 6 PtDAs). The results of the second round will be summarized and they will be presented and discussed with the steering committee. We will then select up to 3 PtDAs judged as having the highest priority for cultural adaptation (phase 3).

    Data Analysis

    Descriptive analyses of sociodemographic data will be conducted to profile the participants. Descriptive analyses will also be used to calculate the overall scores for each of the PtDAs after the 2 e-Delphi rounds. Regarding relevance and clarity, if the number of participants giving a score of 4 to 5 for each dimension divided by the total number of participants is greater than 0.80, this will be considered a good score. Regarding necessity, the formula (Ne – N / 2) / (N / 2) will be applied, where Ne is the number of participants indicating an element as important and N is the total number of participants. This indicator varies between –1 and +1, with higher scores indicating consensus. Results will be collated using SAS (version 9.0; SAS Institute Inc) to calculate the median score and percentage of agreement. We will summarize the open-ended comments using thematic analysis.

    Phase 3: Adaptation of Prioritized PtDAs to the Specificities of the Stakeholders and Health Care Systems Into Which They Will Be Integrated

    Chenel et al [54] propose a framework for cultural adaptation of PtDAs in 4 stages: exploration (ie, identification of content to be adapted), adaptation (ie, incorporation of modifications), pilot testing (ie, validation with knowledge users), and field testing (ie, validation in a real-world context). Informed by this framework, we propose to pilot the cultural adaptation of the selected PtDAs using user-centered design methods and to set up a process that will serve as a proof of concept for the adaptation of the PtDAs to Quebec.

    Specifically, with the help of the steering committee and the extended knowledge user group involved in this project, we will translate the selected PtDAs into French and identify the content that needs to be adapted, such as evidence updates and local information on available options. The research team will then incorporate these changes into the new versions of the selected PtDAs. We will engage language editors or graphic design services as needed. We will then validate the new versions with the steering committee members and our extended knowledge user team, using a new collaborative web-based platform for designing printable and interactive PtDAs [55]. This user-tested platform (PADA) was developed by an international team and enables the collaborative design, revision, or adaptation of PtDAs for multiple needs and contexts. PADA also facilitates the collection and integration of knowledge users’ feedback [56]. Agendas and minutes of each meeting will be produced to document the process of adapting the PtDAs to the Quebec cultural context. The final step will be to integrate the adapted PtDAs into an interprofessional SDM training program. Our team produced and contributed to the first interprofessional model of an SDM training program [57,58] and developed with knowledge users an interprofessional SDM training program for the use of a PtDA for housing transitions that was well received in home care settings [19-21,59]. We will develop a new generic version of this interprofessional SDM training program that can be used in conjunction with the selected PtDAs or any other PtDA.

    Ethical Considerations

    This project was approved by the ethics committee of the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale (MP-13-2023-2848). All stages of this research project will be carried out in accordance with Canadian procedures for informed consent (Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans) [60]. These procedures include disclosure of benefits, risks, and drawbacks of participation, documentation of consent, patient or surrogate competency, plain language, the voluntary nature of the decision, consent for future use of data, confidentiality of data, and data management practices. All participants will give informed consent before participating in the study.


    This study was funded in March 2022 by the CIHR. This protocol was initially submitted before any participants were recruited. The steering committee was recruited in June 2023 and is ready to begin its work. The committee consists of 2 older adults or caregivers; 1 representative of an organization whose mission is to improve services for older adults; 2 health professionals who are also decision makers in 2 health organizations offering home care services in the province of Quebec; 1 representative of the provincial health ministry; 1 geriatric internist with expertise in research with older adults receiving home care services; 1 family physician with expertise in SDM, PtDAs, scalability assessment, and e-Delphi studies; and 1 junior researcher with expertise with SDM and PtDAs. The consensus meeting with the steering committee to select the PtDAs to be prioritized in the e-Delphi study was held in September 2023. Data collection for the e-Delphi study began in October 2023. Results are expected to be published in May 2024.


    This study will provide information about the scalability of PtDAs relevant to home care, a prioritized list of PtDAs for home care, and up to 3 PtDAs culturally adapted to the specificities of the Quebec health care system and stakeholders in the home care context. The study will provide a proof of concept of the process of adapting the PtDAs and integrating them into an interprofessional SDM training program for the home care sector so they can be scaled successfully in the Quebec health care system.

    This study has several notable strengths. First, this project was developed as part of a collaboration with knowledge users that dates back to 2007, and its objectives were developed in response to their stated needs [19,20,28,59,61-63]. We have assembled an experienced interdisciplinary team with a long history of collaboration who possess expertise in developing and adapting PtDAs for the home care sector. In addition, the goals of this project are supported by earlier studies conducted by our team since 2007 showing that older adults have unmet needs for support in making shared informed decisions [5,19,20,28-30,59,61-63] and that the engagement of older adults and their families in health and social care decisions is encouraged by the use of PtDAs and training of clinical teams in SDM [19,20,64,65]. Since most PtDAs are in English and were developed in high-income countries, another strength of this study is that it will contribute to the literature on the cultural adaptation of PtDAs, not only for the Canadian context but for any context where languages and cultures differ within the same region or country.

    The main limitation is that the PtDAs we will prioritize have been identified in a systematic review of published literature [42]. It is therefore possible that these PtDAs do not represent all the current or emerging difficult decisions faced by older adults, their families, and stakeholders. During the COVID-19 pandemic, different decisional needs emerged among older adults that affected their care, such as “should I delay my surgery?” [66,67]. To address this limitation, if participants express a desire for new PtDAs that do not yet exist, we will use the generic Ottawa decision aid to create one that is culturally adapted to the Quebec context [68]. Finally, operational issues could include recruiting enough people for the e-Delphi study. If we are unsuccessful with our current methodology, we will ask the 32 home care teams who participated in our previous home care randomized trials to suggest additional potential members [19,21].

    The ENGAGE project is a response to a declared urgent need by the Quebec government to address gaps in home care [69-72], including the need to support and empower older adults and their families in health-related decision-making. This project will provide relevant and culturally appropriate decision support tools for older adults making difficult decisions and their home care teams. The resulting tools will be ready for scaling across the province of Quebec.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors wish to thank Louisa Blair for editing this paper. This project is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (#02110QAE-475385-QAE-CFBA-19158). FL holds a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Shared Decision Making and Knowledge Mobilization. PA holds a Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé Clinical Scholar Award.

    Data Availability

    The data sets generated or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire (ISSaQ).

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 548 KB
    Multimedia Appendix 2

    Peer-review report by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR/IRSC, Canada).

    PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 54 KB
    1. Infographic: Canada’s seniors population outlook: uncharted territory. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2017. URL: https:/​/www.​cihi.ca/​fr/​infographie-perspectives-de-la-population-de-personnes-agees-au-canada-du-jamais-vu [accessed 2023-09-06]
    2. Évolution, mouvement et structure par âge de la population. Institut de la Statistique du Québec. 2023. URL: https://tinyurl.com/mryvv3zk [accessed 2023-09-06]
    3. Portrait des personnes aînées au Québec. Institut de la Statistique du Québec. 2023. URL: https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/communique/portrait-personnes-ainees-quebec [accessed 2023-09-06]
    4. Coup d'oeil sur les soins et services à domicile reçus par les aînés au Québec en 2013-2014. Institut de la Statistique du Québec. 2016. URL: https://tinyurl.com/mr2rw43w [accessed 2023-10-31]
    5. Toi AK, Ben Charif A, Lai C, Ngueta G, Plourde KV, Stacey D, et al. Difficult decisions for older Canadians receiving home care, and why they are so difficult: a web-based decisional needs assessment. MDM Policy Pract. 2022;7(2):23814683221124090. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681-692. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301-312. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Moulton H, Moulton B, Lahey T, Elwyn G. Can consent to participate in clinical research involve shared decision making? AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(5):E365-E371. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Clayman ML, Bylund CL, Chewning B, Makoul G. The impact of patient participation in health decisions within medical encounters: a systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(4):427-452. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):207-214. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Hauser K, Koerfer A, Kuhr K, Albus C, Herzig S, Matthes J. Outcome-relevant effects of shared decision making. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(40):665-671. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? a systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114-131. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-based Competition on Results. Boston. Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
    14. Sikka R, Morath JM, Leape L. The quadruple aim: care, health, cost and meaning in work. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(10):608-610. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Légaré F, Stacey D, Forest PG, Archambault P, Boland L, Coutu MF, et al. Shared decision-making in Canada: update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022;171:22-29. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94670. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Muscat DM, Smith J, Mac O, Cadet T, Giguere A, Housten AJ, et al. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids: an update from the international patient decision aid standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):848-869. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Yen RW, Smith J, Engel J, Muscat DM, Smith SK, Mancini J, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient decision aids for socially disadvantaged populations: update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS). Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):870-896. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Brière N, Freitas A, Garvelink MM, Dogba MJ, et al. Engaging caregivers in health-related housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment: a cluster randomized trial. Gerontologist. 2020;60(5):947-957. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Brière N, Freitas A, Garvelink MM, Turcotte S, et al. "Please listen to me": a cross-sectional study of experiences of seniors and their caregivers making housing decisions. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202975. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Adisso EL, Taljaard M, Stacey D, Brière N, Zomahoun HTV, Durand PJ, et al. Shared decision-making training for home care teams to engage frail older adults and caregivers in housing decisions: stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial. JMIR Aging. 2022;5(3):e39386. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Légaré F, Stacey D, Brière N, Desroches S, Dumont S, Fraser K, et al. A conceptual framework for interprofessional shared decision making in home care: protocol for a feasibility study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:23. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Légaré F, Stacey D, Brière N, Robitaille H, Lord MC, Desroches S, et al. An interprofessional approach to shared decision making: an exploratory case study with family caregivers of one IP home care team. BMC Geriatr. 2014;14:83. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Légaré F, Stacey D, Gagnon S, Dunn S, Pluye P, Frosch D, et al. Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: a mixed methods study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):554-564. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Patient decision aids. The Ottawa Hospital. 2022. URL: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/ [accessed 2023-09-06]
    26. van Weert JCM, van Munster BC, Sanders R, Spijker R, Hooft L, Jansen J. Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16:45. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Haesebaert J, Adekpedjou R, Croteau J, Robitaille H, Légaré F. Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a web-based survey. CMAJ Open. 2019;7(2):E210-E216. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Lognon T, Gogovor A, Plourde KV, Holyoke P, Lai C, Aubin E, et al. Predictors of decision regret among caregivers of older Canadians receiving home care: a cross-sectional online survey. MDM Policy Pract. 2022;7(2):23814683221116304. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Lai C, Holyoke P, Plourde KV, Yeung L, Légaré F. Home care providers' perceptions of shared decision-making with older clients (and their caregivers): a cross-sectional study. Nurs Health Sci. 2022;24(2):487-498. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Alden DL, Friend J, Schapira M, Stiggelbout A. Cultural targeting and tailoring of shared decision making technology: a theoretical framework for improving the effectiveness of patient decision aids in culturally diverse groups. Soc Sci Med. 2014;105:1-8. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S2. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Estabrooks C, Goel V, Thiel E, Pinfold P, Sawka C, Williams I. Decision aids: are they worth it? a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6(3):170-182. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Straus SE, Graham ID, Tetroe J. Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
    35. Légaré F, Guay-Bélanger S, Dofara GS. Médecine de première ligne dans la gestion de la pandémie de COVID-19 - situation au Québec et au Canada. Rev Med Suisse. 2022;18(805):2239-2241. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Plaisance A, Skrobik Y, Moreau M, Pageau F, Tapp D, Heyland DK. Cultural adaptation of a community-based advance serious illness planning decision aid to the Quebec context involving end-users. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):1016-1028. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Simeonov D, Kobayashi K, Grenier A. How to implement an integrated knowledge mobilization approach. In: Sixsmith A, Sixsmith J, Mihailidis A, Fang ML, editors. Knowledge, Innovation, and Impact: A Guide for the Engaged Health Researcher. Cham, Switzerland. Springer International Publishing; 2021;351-359.
    38. Sex and gender in health research. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2021. URL: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50833.html [accessed 2023-10-31]
    39. Equity, diversity and inclusion in the research system. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2023. URL: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/52543.html [accessed 2023-10-31]
    40. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Duncan E, O'Cathain A, Rousseau N, Croot L, Sworn K, Turner KM, et al. Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(4):e033516. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Lognon T, Plourde KV, Aubin E, Giguere AMC, Archambault PM, Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for home and community care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2022;12(8):e061215. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Milat AJ, King L, Bauman AE, Redman S. The concept of scalability: increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice. Health Promot Int. 2013;28(3):285-298. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Ben Charif A, Hassani K, Wong ST, Zomahoun HTV, Fortin M, Freitas A, et al. Assessment of scalability of evidence-based innovations in community-based primary health care: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. 2018;6(4):E520-E527. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Ben Charif A, Zomahoun HTV, Massougbodji J, Khadhraoui L, Pilon MD, Boulanger E, et al. Assessing the scalability of innovations in primary care: a cross-sectional study. CMAJ Open. 2020;8(4):E613-E618. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Stacey D, Volk RJ, IPDAS Evidence Update Leads. The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) collaboration: evidence update 2.0. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):729-733. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Shang Z. Use of Delphi in health sciences research: a narrative review. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(7):e32829. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    48. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. Santa Monica CA. Rand Corp; 2001.
    49. Beiderbeck D, Frevel N, von der Gracht HA, Schmidt SL, Schweitzer VM. Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: cross-disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements. MethodsX. 2021;8:101401. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Légaré F, Borduas F, Freitas A, Jacques A, Godin G, Luconi F, et al. Development of a simple 12-item theory-based instrument to assess the impact of continuing professional development on clinical behavioral intentions. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91013. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Morgan DL. In: Given LM, editor. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Los Angeles. SAGE Publications; 2008.
    52. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O'Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    53. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-381. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Chenel V, Mortenson WB, Guay M, Jutai JW, Auger C. Cultural adaptation and validation of patient decision aids: a scoping review. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:321-332. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Giguere A, Fekete P. Welcome to PADA a collaborative platform for authors of healthcare decision aids. PADA. 2023. URL: https://www.pada.ai/ [accessed 2023-09-08]
    56. Bélanger J. Tailoring a collaborative platform to develop decision aids and support their broad implementation. Presented at: International Conference on Communication in Healthcare (ICCH) 2021; October 17-20, 2021, 2021; Virtual event.
    57. Stacey D, Brière N, Robitaille H, Fraser K, Desroches S, Légaré F. A systematic process for creating and appraising clinical vignettes to illustrate interprofessional shared decision making. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(5):453-459. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Stacey D, Légaré F, Pouliot S, Kryworuchko J, Dunn S. Shared decision making models to inform an interprofessional perspective on decision making: a theory analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):164-172. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. Garvelink MM, Emond J, Menear M, Brière N, Freitas A, Boland L, et al. Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design. Res Involv Engagem. 2016;2:26. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Natural sciences and engineering research council of Canada. social sciences and humanities research council, TriCouncil policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2022. URL: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/193.html [accessed 2023-10-31]
    61. Boucher A, Haesebaert J, Freitas A, Adekpedjou R, Landry M, Bourassa H, et al. Time to move? factors associated with burden of care among informal caregivers of cognitively impaired older people facing housing decisions: secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial. BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):249. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Elidor H, Ben Charif A, Djade CD, Adekpedjou R, Légaré F. Decision regret among informal caregivers making housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional analysis. Med Decis Making. 2020;40(4):416-427. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Roy N, Dubé R, Després C, Freitas A, Légaré F. Choosing between staying at home or moving: a systematic review of factors influencing housing decisions among frail older adults. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0189266. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Diouf NT, Menear M, Robitaille H, Guérard GP, Légaré F. Training health professionals in shared decision making: update of an international environmental scan. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(11):1753-1758. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Légaré F, Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Turcotte S, Kryworuchko J, Graham ID, et al. Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7(7):CD006732. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Stacey D, Ludwig C, Archambault P, Babulic K, Edwards N, Lavoie J, et al. Feasibility of rapidly developing and widely disseminating patient decision aids to respond to urgent decisional needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(2):233-239. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Stacey D, Ludwig C, Archambault P, Smith M, Taljaard M, Carley M, et al. Decisions and decisional needs of Canadians from all provinces and territories during the COVID-19 pandemic: population-based cross-sectional surveys. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023;9:e43652. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. O'Connor A, Stacey D, Jacobsen MJ. Ottawa personal decision guide. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute & University of Ottawa. 2015. URL: https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decguide.html [accessed 2023-10-31]
    69. Bien vieillir chez soi tome 2: chiffrer la performance. Gouvernement du Québec - Commissaire à la Santé et au Bien être. URL: https:/​/www.​csbe.gouv.qc.ca/​fileadmin/​www/​2023/​Rapportpreliminaire_SAD/​CSBE-Tome2_Rapport_Preliminaire_SoutienDomicile.​pdf [accessed 2023-10-31]
    70. Bien vieillir chez soi tome 1: comprendre l'écosystème. Gouvernement du Québec - Commissaire à la Santé et au Bien-Être. 2023. URL: https:/​/www.​csbe.gouv.qc.ca/​fileadmin/​www/​2023/​Rapportpreliminaire_SAD/​CSBE-Rapport_Preliminaire_SoutienDomicile_V2.​pdf [accessed 2023-10-31]
    71. Guide de consultation: performance des programmes de soutien à domicile. Gouvernement du Québec - Commissaire à la Santé et au Bien-Être. 2023. URL: https://www.csbe.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/www/2022/Mandat_SAD/Guide_consultation_accessible.pdf [accessed 2023-10-31]
    72. Mandat sur la performance des soins et services aux ainés - Covid-19 - Le devoir de faire autrement. Gouvernement du Québec - Commissaire à la Santé et au Bien-Être (CSBE). 2023. URL: https:/​/www.​csbe.gouv.qc.ca/​fileadmin/​www/​2022/​Rapportfinal_Mandat/​CSBE_Resume_exec_rapport_final.​pdf [accessed 2023-10-31]

    ‎
    CIHR: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
    ENGAGE: Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams
    GRIPP2: Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public
    GUIDED: Guidance for Reporting Intervention Development Studies in Health Research
    iKM: integrated knowledge mobilization
    IPDAS: International Patient Decision Aid Standards
    ISSaQ: Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire
    RAND/UCLA: RAND research organization at the University of California at Los Angeles
    REDCap: Research Electronic Data Capture
    PtDA: patient decision aid
    SDM: shared decision-making

    Edited by A Mavragani; The proposal for this study was peer reviewed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR/IRSC, Canada). See the Multimedia Appendix for the peer-review report; submitted 27.09.23; accepted 23.10.23; published 20.11.23.

    Copyright

    ©Sabrina Guay-Bélanger, Emmanuelle Aubin, Marie Cimon, Patrick Archambault, Virginie Blanchette, Anik Giguere, Amédé Gogovor, Michèle Morin, Ali Ben Charif, Nouha Ben Gaied, Julie Bickerstaff, Nancy Chénard, Julie Emond, Julie Gilbert, Isabelle Violet, France Légaré. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 20.11.2023.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.