Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29458347›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

The contribution of a MOOC to community discussions around death and dying.

Jennifer Tieman, Lauren Miller-Lewis, Deb Rawlings, Deborah Parker, Christine Sanderson

Abstract read
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 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Community Views on 'What I Want 'Before I Die'.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    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

5 authors.

Jennifer TiemanCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. jennifer.tieman@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2611-1900
Lauren Miller-LewisCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Deb RawlingsCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.
Deborah ParkerFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Level 7, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Christine SandersonCollege of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances in medicine have helped many to live longer lives and to be able to meet health challenges. However death rates are anticipated to increase given the ageing population and chronic disease progression. Being able to talk about death is seen to be important in normalising death as part of life and supporting preparedness for death. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) provide opportunities for the community to engage in collaborative learning. A 5 week MOOC was developed covering four main topics (language and humour, representations of death, medicalisation of dying, and digital dying) aiming: To enable participants to openly and supportively discuss and learn about issues around living, death and dying, To explore the normally unheard opinions and views of Australians around death and dying, and To determine what effect online learning and discussions offered through the MOOC had on participants' feelings and attitudes towards death and dying.

methodsData was captured on engagement rates in the various MOOC activities. Death Attitudes were measured by five items representing the MOOC's learning objectives and completed at enrolment and conclusion. MOOC Satisfaction was measured with six items at the end of the MOOC. Descriptive statistics were produced for each variable and Chi-Square Tests of Independence assessed the extent of the relationship between categorical variables. Socio-demographic variables were examined as predictors of the outcome variables of MOOC engagement, MOOC satisfaction, and death attitudes. Ethical approval was received from Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee (Project No. 7247).

resultsOne thousand one hundred fifty six people enrolled in the Dying2Learn MOOC with 895 participating in some way. Enrolees were primarily female (92.1%). Age ranged from 16 to 84 (mean = 49.5, SD = 12.3). MOOC satisfaction scores were high. Responses to the experience of participating in the MOOC were very positive, with mean scores ranging from 4.3 to 4.6 (aligning with agreement and strong agreement to statements on the value of participating). Death Attitudes were positive at commencement but increased significantly following participation.

conclusionsThe Dying2Learn MOOC provided an environment that enabled open and supportive discussion around death and dying and influenced attitudinal change.

Indexed as

Attitude to DeathPatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaFemaleHumansInternetLearningMaleMiddle AgedPalliative CarePublic HealthSocial ClassCommunity educationDeath attitudesMOOCOnline learningPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID29458347
PMCPMC5819292

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.