ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2017
Other Ways of Knowing.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor on cystic fibrosis health-related quality of life and decision-making about daily treatment regimens: a mixed methods exploratory study.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2024Article
- Survival models to support shared decision-making about advance care planning for people with advanced stage cystic fibrosis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2021Article
- Does Calculated Prognostic Estimation Lead to Different Outcomes Compared With Experience-Based Prognostication in the ICU? A Systematic Review.Critical care explorations · 2019Review
- A Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making About Mechanical Ventilation in Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients (InformedTogether): Feasibility Study.Journal of participatory medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with advanced-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may suffer severe respiratory exacerbations and need to decide between accepting life-sustaining treatments versus foregoing these treatments (choosing comfort care only). We designed the InformedTogether decision aid to inform this decision and describe results of a pilot study to assess usability focusing on participants' trust in the content of the decision aid, acceptability, recommendations for improvement, and emotional reactions to this emotionally laden decision.
methodsStudy participants ( N = 26) comprising clinicians, patients, and surrogates viewed the decision aid, completed usability tasks, and participated in interviews and focus groups assessing comprehension, trust, perception of bias, and perceived acceptability of InformedTogether. Mixed methods were used to analyze results.
resultsAlmost all participants understood the gist (general meaning) of InformedTogether. However, many lower literacy participants had difficulty answering the more detailed questions related to comprehension, especially when interpreting icon arrays, and many were not aware that they had misunderstood the information. Qualitative analysis showed a range of emotional reactions to the information. Participants with low verbatim comprehension frequently referenced lived experiences when answering knowledge questions, which we termed "alternative knowledge."
conclusionsWe found a range of emotional reactions to the information and frequent use of alternative knowledge frameworks for deriving meaning from the data. These observations led to insights into the impact of lived experiences on the uptake of biomedical information presented in decision aids. Communicating prognostic information could potentially be improved by eliciting alternative knowledge as a starting point to build communication, in particular for low literacy patients. Decision aids designed to facilitate shared decision making should elicit this knowledge and help clinicians tailor information accordingly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.