Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29445267›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

A patient and community-centered approach selecting endpoints for a randomized trial of a novel advance care planning tool.

John Fp Bridges, Norah L Crossnohere, Anne L Schuster, Judith A Miller, Carolyn Pastorini, Rebecca A Aslakson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

6 authors.

John Fp BridgesDepartment of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Norah L CrossnohereDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Anne L SchusterDepartment of Health Policy and Management, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Judith A MillerPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project, Baltimore, MD.
Carolyn PastoriniPatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project, Baltimore, MD.
Rebecca A AslaksonDepartment of Health, Behavior, and Society, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute CD-12-11-4362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a movement toward patient-centered outcomes, best practices on how to gather and refine patients' perspectives on research endpoints are limited. Advanced care planning (ACP) is inherently patient centered and would benefit from patient prioritization of endpoints for ACP-related tools and studies.

objectiveThis investigation sought to prioritize patient-centered endpoints for the content and evaluation of an ACP video being developed for patients undergoing major surgery. We also sought to highlight an approach using complementary engagement and research strategies to document priorities and preferences of patients and other stakeholders. MATERIALS AND

methodsEndpoints identified from a previously published environmental scan were operationalized following rating by a caregiver co-investigator, refinement by a patient co-investigator, review by a stakeholder committee, and validation by patients and family members. Finalized endpoints were taken to a state fair where members of the public who indicated that they or a loved one had undergone major surgery prioritized their most relevant endpoints and provided comments.

resultsOf the initial 50 ACP endpoints identified from the review, 12 endpoints were selected for public prioritization. At the state fair, 359 individuals prioritized the endpoints, the highest ranking of which was having a meaningful conversation with a physician before surgery (57%).

conclusionUsing a novel combination of engagement and research techniques provided the opportunity to understand which endpoints were most important to patients and families and fostered framework development clarifying the differential contributions of engagement and research. Results from this study ultimately changed the content and evaluation of the ACP video.

Indexed as

community participationpatient participationpatient preferenceresearch design

Identifiers

PMID29445267
PMCPMC5810536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.