Article Text

Download PDFPDF
180 Professionals’ receptivity to the use of decision aids to promote healthy aging. A qualitative descriptive study
  1. Elodie Montaigne1,2,3,
  2. Isabelle Côte1,4,
  3. Bruno Brochu5,
  4. Clémence Dallaire2,6,
  5. Pierre J Durand1,2,3,
  6. Marie-Pierre Gagnon1,2,7,
  7. Dominique Giroux2,3,7,
  8. Carol Hudon1,2,8,
  9. Edeltraut Kröger1,2,3,7,
  10. France Legare1,2,3,7,
  11. Jocelyn Lindsay1,4,
  12. Sonia Singamalum2,3,
  13. Marie-José Sirois1,2,3,7,
  14. Jean-Noël Theriault1,4,
  15. André Tourigny1,2,3,
  16. Anik Giguere1,2,3
  1. 1VITAM-Research center for sustainable health, Québec, Canada
  2. 2Laval University, Quebec City, Canada
  3. 3CEVQ-Centre d’Excellence sur le Vieillissement de Québec, Quebec City, Canada
  4. 4Citizen Partner
  5. 5Centre d’information et de référence de la Capitale-Nationale et de Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, Canada
  6. 6Centre de recherche CISSS-Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, Canada
  7. 7Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec, Quebec City, Canada
  8. 8Centre de recherche CERVO, Quebec City, Canada


Introduction Given the limited resources for counselling older adults about healthy aging, we aimed to identify healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and community organization representatives’ (CORs) perspectives on integrating shared decision-making (SDM) into their practice.

Methods Guided by the SRQR checklist, our descriptive qualitative study involved developing seven decision aids (DAs), each addressing a key aspect of health: memory, social life, mobility, nutrition, mood, self-care and sleep. HCPs and CORs were recruited through our partnerships with practice organisations. The inclusion criterion was working with older adults. In individual videoconference interviews, participants underwent a think-aloud procedure while reviewing one randomly assigned DA. They then answered open-ended questions about the DA’s relevance to their practice. The interviews were video-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed by three researchers, following Stiggelbout & al.’s four- step SDM approach: 1) informing that a decision has to be made; 2) explaining the options; 3) discussing the patient’s preferences; 4) making or deferring the decision.

Results 14 HCPs and 12 CORs participated until data saturation was achieved. By reviewing the DA, they developed an understanding of the SDM process. While appreciating the awareness-raising intention regarding step 1, participants expressed concerns about potentially discouraging healthy behavior through disadvantages presentation (step 2). For step 3, they appreciated the personalized approach to clarify older adults’ priorities. However, confusion arose about step 4 regarding the limitation for older adults to select only one option from those presented in the DA.

Discussion The empowering and person-centred approach of the DAs, aligning with participants’ goals, may foster SDM integration into their practice. However, presenting the disadvantages of the options differs from their preconceptions regarding public health interventions.

Conclusion Integrating SDM into HCPs and ROCs’ practice seems feasible to empower older adults to engage in discussions about their health choices.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.