Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24816136›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Physicians' perceptions of the value of prognostic models: the benefits and risks of prognostic confidence.

Sarah A M Hallen, Norbert A M Hootsmans, Laura Blaisdell, Caitlin M Gutheil, Paul K J Han

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Facilitators and Barriers of the Use of Prognostic Models for Clinical Decision Making in Acute Neurologic Care: A Systematic Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The impact of a web-based prognostic calculator on prognostic confidence in outpatient palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sarah A M HallenGeriatric Medicine, Maine Medical Center, Portland, ME, USA.
Norbert A M HootsmansCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Laura BlaisdellCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Caitlin M GutheilCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.
Paul K J HanCenter for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Portland, ME, USA.

Funding

PHS HHS K01HP20461
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe communication of prognosis in end-of-life (EOL) care is a challenging task that is limited by prognostic uncertainty and physicians' lack of confidence in their prognostic estimates. Clinical prediction models (CPMs) are increasingly common evidence-based tools that may mitigate these problems and facilitate the communication and use of prognostic information in EOL care; however, little is known about physicians' perceptions of the value of these tools.

objectiveTo explore physicians' perceptions of the value of CPMs in EOL care.

designQualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews which were analysed using a constant comparative method. SETTING AND

participantsConvenience sample of 17 attending physicians representing five different medical specialties at a single large tertiary care medical centre.

resultsPhysicians perceived CPMs as having three main benefits in EOL care: (i) enhancing their prognostic confidence; (ii) increasing their prognostic authority; and (iii) enabling patient persuasion in circumstances of low prognostic and therapeutic uncertainty. However, physicians also perceived CPMs as having potential risks, which include producing emotional distress in patients and promoting prognostic overconfidence in EOL care. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsPhysicians perceive CPMs as a potentially valuable means of increasing their prognostic confidence, communication and explicit use of prognostic information in EOL care. However, physicians' perceptions of CPMs also indicate a need to establish broad and consistent implementation processes to engage patients in shared decision making in EOL care, to effectively communicate uncertainty in prognostic information and to help both patients and physicians manage uncertainty in EOL care decisions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelUncertaintyCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleHumansMalePhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansPrognosisQualitative ResearchRisk AssessmentTerminal Careclinical prediction modelscommunicationphysician attitudesprognostication

Identifiers

PMID24816136
PMCPMC5810722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.