Home › Research › Caregiving
Public Preferences for Autonomy-Enhancing Dementia Care in Ireland: A Protocol for a Discrete Choice Experiment
Boyanagari VK, Walsh S, Walsh B, O'shea E.. HRB Open Res, 2026-09-22
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background: Dementia is a leading cause of death and disability among older people worldwide with countries supporting people to remain at home for as long as possible. Autonomy is widely recognised as a key principle of person-centred dementia care and is increasingly emphasised in national and international dementia policies, including Ireland. Recent studies reconceptualise autonomy as relational and supported, recognising that people with dementia can exercise choice when supported by appropriate relationships, environment and services. Evidence on public preferences and willingness to pay for autonomy enhancing dementia care remains scarce in Ireland, where dementia care is largely publicly funded. Objective This protocol describes the systematic development process of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit public preferences and willingness to pay for autonomy enhancing supports for people with mild-to-moderate dementia living at home in Ireland. Methods This study adopts a two-phase design. The first phase involves a comprehensive attribute and level development process informed by relational theory and DCE best practices. Attribute development followed a review of academic and policy literature, patient and public involvement activities with people with dementia and carers, and focus groups with Irish public, attribute synthesis and prioritisation, and pre-pilot and pilot testing. This process is grounded in relational theory and have five attributes for the DCE: Housing adaptations, community inclusion, home care support, Assistive and digital technology and an additional yearly tax contribution. In the second phase, the survey will be administered to a nationally representative sample of 750 Irish adults using an online survey panel. Bayesian efficient experimental design will be used to generate choice sets and econometric analysis will estimate the preferences and willingness to pay. Discussion This study is one the first to account of attribute development for a DCE examining the public preferences for autonomy enhancing dementia care in Ireland.
Key findings
- Attribute development followed a review of academic and policy literature, patient and public involvement activities with people with dementia and carers, and focus groups with Irish public, attribute synthesis and prioritisation, and pre-pilot and pilot testing.
- This process is grounded in relational theory and have five attributes for the DCE: Housing adaptations, community inclusion, home care support, Assistive and digital technology and an additional yearly tax contribution.
- In the second phase, the survey will be administered to a nationally representative sample of 750 Irish adults using an online survey panel.
- Bayesian efficient experimental design will be used to generate choice sets and econometric analysis will estimate the preferences and willingness to pay.
- Discussion This study is one the first to account of attribute development for a DCE examining the public preferences for autonomy enhancing dementia care in Ireland.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (HRB Open Res) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Boyanagari, V. K., Walsh, S., Walsh, B., & O'shea, E. (2026). Public Preferences for Autonomy-Enhancing Dementia Care in Ireland: A Protocol for a Discrete Choice Experiment. HRB Open Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14532.1
Vancouver
Boyanagari VK, Walsh S, Walsh B, O'shea E. Public Preferences for Autonomy-Enhancing Dementia Care in Ireland: A Protocol for a Discrete Choice Experiment. HRB Open Res. 2026. doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.14532.1.
BibTeX
@article{boyanagari2026-48bbdcb0,
author = {Boyanagari, V. K. and Walsh, S. and Walsh, B. and O'shea, E.},
title = {{Public Preferences for Autonomy-Enhancing Dementia Care in Ireland: A Protocol for a Discrete Choice Experiment}},
journal = {HRB Open Res},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.12688/hrbopenres.14532.1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14532.1}
}
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.