Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29661749›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2018

A Website Supporting Sensitive Religious and Cultural Advance Care Planning (ACPTalk): Formative and Summative Evaluation.

Amanda Pereira-Salgado, Patrick Mader, Clare O'Callaghan, Leanne Boyd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Amanda Pereira-SalgadoCentre for Nursing Research, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8353-8230
Patrick MaderCentre for Nursing Research, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6259-1817
Clare O'CallaghanPalliative and Supportive Care Research Department, Cabrini Institute, Malvern, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3180-2781
Leanne BoydFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-6357

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) promotes conversations about future health care needs, enacted if a person is incapable of making decisions at end-of-life that may be communicated through written documentation such as advance care directives. To meet the needs of multicultural and multifaith populations in Australia, an advance care planning website, ACPTalk, was funded to support health professionals in conducting conversations within diverse religious and cultural populations. ACPTalk aimed to provide religion-specific advance care planning content and complement existing resources.

objectiveThe purpose of this paper was to utilize the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) framework to conduct a formative and summative evaluation of ACPTalk.

methodsThe CIPP framework was used, which revolves around 4 aspects of evaluation: context, input, process, and product. Context: health professionals' solutions for the website were determined through thematic analysis of exploratory key stakeholder interviews. Included religions were determined through an environmental scan, Australian population statistics, and documentary analysis of project steering committee meeting minutes. Input: Project implementation and challenges were examined through documentary analysis of project protocols and meeting minutes. Process: To ensure religion-specific content was accurate and appropriate, a website prototype was built with content review and functionality testing by representatives from religious and cultural organizations and other interested health care organizations who completed a Web-based survey. Product: Website analytics were used to report utilization, and stakeholder perceptions were captured through interviews and a website survey.

resultsContext: A total of 16 key stakeholder health professional (7 general practitioners, 2 primary health nurses, and 7 palliative care nurses) interviews were analyzed. Website solutions included religious and cultural information, communication ideas, legal information, downloadable content, and Web-based accessibility. Christian and non-Christian faiths were to be included in the religion-specific content. Input: Difficulties gaining consensus on religion-specific content were overcome by further state and national religious organizations providing feedback. Process: A total of 37 content reviewers included representatives of religious and cultural organizations (n=29), health care (n=5), and community organizations (n=3). The majority strongly agree or agree that the content used appropriate language and tone (92%, 34/37), would support health professionals (89%, 33/37), and was accurate (83%, 24/29). Product: Resource usage within the first 9 months was 12,957 page views in 4260 sessions; majority were (83.45%, 3555/4260) from Australia. A total of 107 Australian-based users completed the website survey; most felt information was accurate (77.6%, 83/107), easy to understand (82.2%, 88/107), useful (86.0%, 92/107), and appropriate (86.0%, 92/107). A total of 20 nurses (general practice n=10, palliative care n=8, and both disciplines n=2) participated in stakeholder interviews. Qualitative findings indicated overall positivity in relation to accessibility, functionality, usefulness, design, and increased knowledge of advance care planning. Recommended improvements included shortened content, a comparable website for patients and families, and multilingual translations.

conclusionsThe CIPP framework was effectively applied to evaluate the development and end product of an advance care planning website.Although overall findings were positive, further advance care planning website development should consider the recommendations derived from this study.

Indexed as

advance care planningcultureehealthhealth personnelreligion

Identifiers

PMID29661749
PMCPMC5928329

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.