Table 3 Comments on the first guide prototype (cycle 2)
Comments | Caregivers | Health administrators | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
General | Very good initiative | ✓ | ✓ | |
Length/amount of information | Too long | ✓ | ✓ | Shorten text |
Some information is missing, not enough detail about options (for example lists of resources in community) | ✓ | ✓ | Remove parts and provide additional document for professionals with relevant information | |
Remove list of pros and cons, stimulate people to think for themselves | ✓ | ✓ | Remove page, give examples of pros and cons in additional document for HCP | |
✓ | ✓ | |||
Understand ability/clarity of use | Provision of examples | More | Less | We tried to mention examples where possible |
Tool is broad and specific at the same time, and complex to complete | ✓ | The tool is not meant to be completed alone but with the HCP; this will be emphasized to the HCP when handing out the tool and introducing it | ||
Consider literacy | ✓ | Readability checked | ||
The information about the general data and (lack of) evidence is difficult | ✓ | ✓ | Text clarified, general information removed | |
Iso-SMAF needs clarification | ✓ | ✓ | Text is clarified and shortened, figure updated | |
Target population | Not consistent to whom is directed/ not clear what target population is (senior, caregiver, professional) | ✓ | ✓ | Wording checked, target population clarified in Introduction |
Not clear if the tool is meant to support decision making about moving from any location to any other | ✓ | Emphasize that the tool is meant for people who live in a traditional home setting and are thinking about moving elsewhere | ||
Balance | (Too) balanced | ✓ | ✓ | |
Presentation of costs is leaning a bit towards staying at home | ✓ | We tried to mention the costs as neutrally as possible | ||
Design/presentation | Bigger font size | ✓ | Increase font size | |
Coloured boxes may be difficult to see | ✓ | Designer adjusts final design |