180 Chapter 6 are that it can provide (1) a concrete plan and actions, (2) substantial time savings, (3) a concrete plan with actions, and (4) greater support for and commitment to the choices and actions [26,27]. To stimulate creativity, the pressure cooker session was divided into two subgroups. The input for the first part of the session was eight inspiration cards based on metaphors created by the research group (Appendix A). Casakin [28] noted that metaphors can help to identify and capture design concepts, as well as define goals and requirements and stimulate creative thinking. The inspiration cards were based on public campaigns in the Netherlands to raise sensitisation among people. The second part of this brainstorming session aimed to identify solutions based on personas, as developed in our previous article [21]. These personas (Anna, Monica, Julia, and Paul) showed a diversity in attitudes and perspectives on oral health from MHNs. Furthermore, in the personas, there were differences in barriers, needs, and suggestions for interventions from MHNs. The personas were prepared by the research team and sent to participants prior to the session, and we asked them to empathise with each persona. The main question was, “considering the characteristics and circumstances of this person, which main problem should be solved and what needs do they have? And, if the MHNs were to meet the person in practice, what should they do and why?” Every session was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Step 2a entailed prioritising insights and concepts for prototypical tools aimed at enhancing the decision-making process utilising a multi-criteria decision matrix (MCDM) [29]. The MCDM involved a procedure for identifying the optimal and most viable solution based on established criteria and prevalent issues in the work of MHNs in the context of oral health care for patients with psychotic disorders. The input (15 possible tools) for the MCDM was derived from the analysis of the focus group results in step 1a. Using an MCDM [29] can enhance participants’ decision-making ability by facilitating knowledge transfer, ensuring that all factors relevant to a decision are comprehensively considered and that the rationale behind decisions is clearly communicated. During the initial phase, the 15 possible tools were discussed, and seven criteria were formulated. These criteria, based on the work of Prochaska and Di Clemente (criteria 1–3) [22] and key critical success factors in implementation (criteria 4–7) [30], were that the tool should (1) enhance knowledge pertaining to oral health care among MHNs (not oral health
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw