Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29458344›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

The DEsire to DIe in Palliative care: Optimization of Management (DEDIPOM) - a study protocol.

Kerstin Kremeike, Maren Galushko, Gerrit Frerich, Vanessa Romotzky, Stefanie Hamacher, Gary Rodin, Holger Pfaff, Raymond Voltz

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 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
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kerstin KremeikeDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. kerstin.kremeike@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4316-2379
Maren GalushkoDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Gerrit FrerichDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Vanessa RomotzkyDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stefanie HamacherInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Gary RodinDepartment of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Holger PfaffInstitute of Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science (IMVR), The University of Cologne, Medical Faculty, Cologne, Germany.
Raymond VoltzDepartment of Palliative Medicine, Medical Faculty of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University of Cologne · DEUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01GY1706
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA desire to die (DD) is frequent in palliative care (PC). However, uncertainty remains as to the appropriate therapeutic response. (Proactive) discussion of DD is not usually part of standard care. To support health practitioners' (HPs) reactions to a patient's DD, a training program has been developed, piloted and evaluated. Within this framework, a first draft of a semi-structured clinical interview schedule with prompts (CISP) has been developed, including recommendations for action to support HPs' self-confidence. The aim of this study is the further development of the CISP to support routine exploration of death and dying distress and proactive addressing of a DD.

methodsThis observatory, prospective health services study comprises a three step study design: 1. Revision of the CISP and consensus finding based on semi-structured interviews with patients and a Delphi process with (inter-)national experts, patient representatives and relatives; 2. Increasing confidence in HPs through a 2 day-training program using the consented CISP; 3. A formative quantitative evaluation of conversations between HPs and patients (300 palliative patients at three time points) and a qualitative evaluation based on interview triads of patients, relatives and HPs. The evaluation of conversations will include patient-oriented outcomes, including perceived relationships with HPs and death and dying distress. We will also consider aspects of social inequality and gender. DISCUSSION: The intervention can provide a framework for open discussion of DD and a basis for enhancing a trustful HP-patient relationship in which such difficult topics can be addressed. The benefits of this study will include (a) the creation of the first consented semi-structured approach to identify and address DD and to respond therapeutically, (b) the multi-professional enhancement of confidence in dealing with patients' DD and an intervention that can flexibly be integrated into other training and education programs and (c) an evaluation of effects of this intervention on patients, relatives and HPs, with attention to social inequality and gender.

trial registrationThe study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00012988 ; registration date: 27.9.2017) and in the Health Services Research Database ( VfD_DEDIPOM_17_003889 ; registration date: 14.9.2017).

Indexed as

Attitude to DeathPalliative CareTerminally IllDelphi TechniqueHumansObservational Studies as TopicProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesAssisted dyingCommunicationDesire to dieGeneral and specialized palliative careMulti-professionalRelationshipSuicidal ideationSuicideTrainingWish towards hastening death

Identifiers

PMID29458344
PMCPMC5819295
OpenAlexW2790297243

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.