ArticleBMC geriatrics2017
Factors influencing decision regret regarding placement of a PEG among substitute decision-makers of older persons in Japan: a prospective study.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emotional, Ethical and Cultural Challenges in Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG) Decision-Making: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Online training for Japanese healthcare professionals in the development and use of patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making: An acceptability study.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Decision Making for Gastrostomy Tube Placement for People Living with Serious Illness: A Scoping Review.Journal of palliative medicine · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Differences in Physicians' Attitudes toward Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Feeding in Older Adults Receiving End-of-Life Care in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study.Palliative medicine reports · 2024Article
- Prevalence of long-term decision regret and associated risk factors in a large cohort of ICU surrogate decision makers.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Associations between health literacy and information-evaluation and decision-making skills in Japanese adults.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2022Review
- Association between delivery methods for enteral nutrition and physical status among older adults.BMC nutrition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA tube feeding decision aid designed at the Ottawa Health Research Institute was specifically created for substitute decision-makers who must decide whether to allow placement of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in a cognitively impaired older person. We developed a Japanese version and found that the decision aid promoted the decision-making process of substitute decision-makers to decrease decisional conflict and increase knowledge. However, the factors that influence decision regret among substitute decision-makers were not measured after the decision was made. The objective of this study was to explore the factors that influence decision regret among substitute decision-makers 6 months after using a decision aid for PEG placement.
methodsIn this prospective study, participants comprised substitute decision-makers for 45 inpatients aged 65 years and older who were being considered for placement of a PEG tube in hospitals, nursing homes and patients' homes in Japan. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was used to evaluate decisional conflict among substitute decision-makers immediately after deciding whether to introduce tube feeding and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) was used to evaluate decisional regret among substitute decision-makers 6 months after they made their decision. Normalized scores were evaluated and analysis of variance was used to compare groups.
resultsThe results of the multiple regression analysis suggest that PEG placement (P < .01) and decision conflict (P < .001) are explanatory factors of decision regret regarding placement of a PEG among substitute decision-makers.
conclusionsPEG placement and decision conflict immediately after deciding whether to allow PEG placement have an influence on decision regret among substitute decision-makers after 6 months.
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.