Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25852965›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2015

Development and usability testing of a Web-based decision aid for families of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Christopher E Cox, Nicholas G Wysham, Brenda Walton, Derek Jones, Brian Cass, Maria Tobin, Mattias Jonsson, Jeremy M Kahn, Douglas B White, Catherine L Hough and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Shared Decision Making in Neurocritical Care.Neurosurgery clinics of North America · 2018
    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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher E CoxDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710 USA ; Program to Support People and Enhance Recovery, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.
Nicholas G WyshamDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710 USA ; Program to Support People and Enhance Recovery, Duke University, Durham, NC USA ; Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC USA.
Brenda WaltonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710 USA ; Program to Support People and Enhance Recovery, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.
Derek JonesDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710 USA ; Program to Support People and Enhance Recovery, Duke University, Durham, NC USA.
Brian CassInformation Technologist, Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Maria TobinInformation Technologist, Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Mattias JonssonInformation Technologist, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Jeremy M KahnDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA USA.
Douglas B WhiteDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA USA.
Catherine L HoughDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA.
Carmen L LewisDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, CO USA.
Shannon S CarsonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Improving decision making for patients with prolonged mechanical ventilationR01HL109823 · NHLBI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI COX, CHRISTOPHER ETHAN · 2012 to 2016
$3.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL109823
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based decision aids are increasingly important in medical research and clinical care. However, few have been studied in an intensive care unit setting. The objectives of this study were to develop a Web-based decision aid for family members of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and to evaluate its usability and acceptability.

methodsUsing an iterative process involving 48 critical illness survivors, family surrogate decision makers, and intensivists, we developed a Web-based decision aid addressing goals of care preferences for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation that could be either administered by study staff or completed independently by family members (Development Phase). After piloting the decision aid among 13 surrogate decision makers and seven intensivists, we assessed the decision aid's usability in the Evaluation Phase among a cohort of 30 surrogate decision makers using the Systems Usability Scale (SUS). Acceptability was assessed using measures of satisfaction and preference for electronic Collaborative Decision Support (eCODES) versus the original printed decision aid.

resultsThe final decision aid, termed 'electronic Collaborative Decision Support', provides a framework for shared decision making, elicits relevant values and preferences, incorporates clinical data to personalize prognostic estimates generated from the ProVent prediction model, generates a printable document summarizing the user's interaction with the decision aid, and can digitally archive each user session. Usability was excellent (mean SUS, 80 ± 10) overall, but lower among those 56 years and older (73 ± 7) versus those who were younger (84 ± 9); p = 0.03. A total of 93% of users reported a preference for electronic versus printed versions.

conclusionsThe Web-based decision aid for ICU surrogate decision makers can facilitate highly individualized information sharing with excellent usability and acceptability. Decision aids that employ an electronic format such as eCODES represent a strategy that could enhance patient-clinician collaboration and decision making quality in intensive care.

Indexed as

Chronic critical illnessCritical illnessDecision aidDecision supportPatient-centerednessPatient reported outcomesProlonged mechanical ventilationSurrogate decision makingUsability

Identifiers

PMID25852965
PMCPMC4385299
OpenAlexW2145517699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.