Data-driven shared decision-making on district nursing interventions to support independent functioning in older adults. Other
Conditions
Interventions
Recruitment
The researchers will contact key persons from participating organizations to help distribute recruitment information within the teams. Participation is entirely voluntary. In intervention
Sponsors
Amsterdam University Medical Centers
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 150 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: 1. District Nursing Care Organizations: 1.1 Participation in the Data Nurse consortium (ZonMw project number: 80-86300-98-057) 1.2 Ability to implement the Independent Functioning Dashboard into their electronic client record system 1.3 Sufficient willingness and capacity to participate in the study 2. District Nursing Teams: 2.1 Teams must be affiliated with the Data Nurse project 2.2 For the intervention group, teams must have access to the Independent Functioning Dashboard 3. Clients: 3.1 Individuals aged 65 years or older 3.2 Currently receiving district nursing care from a team participating in the Data Nurse project 4. Informal Caregivers: 4.1 Informal caregivers of clients who are receiving district nursing care from a participating team
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: 1. District Nursing Teams: 1.1 Nursing teams currently participating in other healthcare-related research studies 2. Clients: 2.1 Clients with a condition that causes irreversible decline in independence, such as: 2.1.1 Advanced dementia (stage two or higher, according to Alzheimer Nederland) 2.1.2 Advanced Parkinson’s disease 2.1.3 Multiple sclerosis 2.2 Clients with a life expectancy of less than 3 months 2.3 Clients and/or informal caregivers who have insufficient proficiency in Dutch to provide informed consent 2.4 Clients currently participating in other healthcare-related research studies
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Intervention Group 1. Feasibility 1.1 Feasibility of the intervention measured using the FIM questionnaire at baseline (T0) and end of study (T1) 1.2 Recruitment rate measured using the progress monitoring log at Month 1 1.3 Retention rate measured using the progress monitoring log at end of study (T1) 1.4 Participation rate measured using the progress monitoring log at end of study (T1) 2. Acceptability 2.1 Acceptability of the Shared Decision-Making Tool measured using the TFA questionnaire (Likert scales) at T1 (end of study) for healthcare professionals 2.2 Acceptability of the dashboard measured using the TFA questionnaire (Likert scales) at T1 for healthcare professionals 2.3 Acceptability of the Shared Decision-Making Tool measured using the TFA questionnaire (Likert scales) at T1 for clients 2.4 Client usage rate of the Shared Decision-Making Tool measured using the progress monitoring log at T1 3. Fidelity 3.1 Fidelity of intervention delivery measured using the progress monitoring log and fidelity checklist (F1) at monthly intervals from Month 1 to Month 5 4. Barriers and Facilitators 4.1 Barriers and facilitators to implementation measured using the Huijg questionnaire at T0 and T1 (for healthcare professionals) 4.2 Technical issues and user-reported problems measured using logbooks in the progress monitor from T0 to T1 5. Shared Decision-Making Experience 5.1 Client experience of shared decision-making measured using the CollaboRATE questionnaire at T0 and T1 5.2 Client experience of shared decision-making measured using a custom questionnaire and interviews at T1 and during summer 2025 (midpoint) 5.3 Healthcare professionals’ experience of shared decision-making measured using a custom questionnaire and focus groups at T1 Control Group 1. Shared Decision-Making Experience (Clients) 1.1 Client experience of shared decision-making measured using the CollaboRATE questionnaire at T0 and T1 1.2 Client experience of shared d | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Here is the revised version with sub-list numbering and no formatting: Intervention Group 1. Secondary Outcomes from Electronic Health Records 1.1 Number of weekly nursing care contacts measured using data extraction from electronic client record at T0 and T1 1.2 Total hours of district nursing care delivered per week measured using data extraction at T0 and T1 1.3 Type of nursing care provided (face-to-face, video call, telephone, care technology) measured using data extraction at T0 and T1 2. PROMs 2.1 Client-reported outcomes on perceived health measured using PROMs from the Shared Decision-Making Tool and TOPICS-SF at T0 and T1 3. Target Scores 3.1 Percentage of care actions focused on promoting independence measured using client records at T1 3.2 Percentage of improved scores per domain (from intake to evaluation) measured using client records at T1 and second evaluation 3.3 Percentage of clients who achieved their target scores measured using client records at T1 and second evaluation Additional Activities – Intervention Group Client burden 1.1 Shared Decision-Making Tool usage time: approximately 30 minutes (plus 10 for caregivers) 1.2 Questionnaire administration (T0): Baseline, acceptability, CollaboRATE, shared decision-making form (approximately 35 minutes) 1.3 Questionnaire administration (T1): CollaboRATE, shared decision-making form (approximately 20 minutes) 1.4 Interview: 60-minute home interview during Summer 2025 (optional) 2. Healthcare professionals’ burden 2.1 Questionnaires (T0 and T1): acceptability, feasibility, barriers/facilitators, experience with Shared Decision-Making Tool (total approximately 35–40 minutes each time) 2.2 Monthly progress meetings: 30–60 minutes with researchers (Months 1–5) 2.3 Dashboard discussions in client meetings: approximately 15 minutes monthly 2.4 Focus groups 2.4.1 Four focus groups (dashboard barriers) – 8 to 12 participants, 90 minutes 2.4.2 Two focus groups (shared decis | — |
Countries
Netherlands
Contacts
Public ContactSigrid;Bianca Wulfse-Huisman;Buurman-van Es
;
Outcome results
None listed