Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31896447›Full record

ArticleJournal of critical care2020

Developing the family support tool: An interactive, web-based tool to help families navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs.

Angela O Suen, Rachel A Butler, Robert Arnold, Brad Myers, Holly O Witteman, Christopher E Cox, Amanda Argenas, Praewpannanrai Buddadhumaruk, Alexandra Bursic, Natalie C Ernecoff and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of critical care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Surrogate Wars: The "Best Interest Values" Hierarchy & End-of-Life Conflicts with Surrogate Decision-Makers.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Factors Affecting Psychological Distress in Family Caregivers of Critically Ill Patients: A Qualitative Study.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Angela O SuenUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, 1218 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States of America.
Rachel A ButlerUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Robert ArnoldUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, 1218 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, United States of America; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Palliative and Supportive Institute, Iroquois Building, Suite 308, 3600 Forbes Avenue at Meyran Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Brad MyersCarnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Human Computer Interaction Institute, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Holly O WittemanUniversité Laval, Department of Family & Emergency Medicine, Bureau 4617, Pavillon Ferdinand-Vandry, 1050 Avenue de la Médecine, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada.
Christopher E CoxDuke University, School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, 2301 Erwin Road, Durham, NC 27710, United States of America.
Amanda ArgenasUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Praewpannanrai BuddadhumarukUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Alexandra BursicUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Natalie C ErnecoffUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Anne-Marie ShieldsUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Dang K TranUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America.
Douglas B WhiteUniversity of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, Department of Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Program on Ethics and Decision Making, 600 Scaife Hall, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America. Electronic address: douglas.white@pitt.edu.

Funding

Mentored Patient Oriented Research in Improving Surrogate Decision Making for Patients with Advanced Respiratory FailureK24HL148314 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Douglas B White · 2019 to 2026
$944k
Developing a Web and Tablet based Tool to Improve Communication and Shared Decision Making between Clinicians and Surrogates in ICUsR21AG050252 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WHITE, DOUGLAS B · 2015 to 2016
$423k
NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL148314NIA NIH HHS R21 AG050252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAlthough family members of incapacitated, critically ill patients often struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker, there are no low-cost, easily-scaled interventions to address this problem. AIM OF THE STUDY: To develop and pilot-test the Family Support Tool, an interactive, web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe used a mixed methods, user-centered process to create the Family Support Tool, including: 1) creation of a preliminary design by an expert panel; 2) engagement of a key stakeholder panel to iteratively refine the preliminary design; 3) user testing of a low-fidelity prototype of the tool by 6 former ICU surrogates; 4) creation of a web-based prototype; and 5) user testing of the web-based prototype with 14 surrogates and ICU physicians, including semi-structured interviews and quantitative measurement of usability, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness.

resultsThe initial design contained a collection of videos and exercises designed to help individuals understand the surrogate's role and think through the patient's values and preferences. Based on family stakeholders' feedback about the emotional overwhelm they experience early in an ICU stay, we redesigned the tool to be viewed in sections, with the first section focused on decreasing surrogates' emotional distress, and later sections focused on helping surrogates prepare for family meetings. Surrogates actively making decisions in the ICU judged the final tool to be highly usable (mean summary score 83.5, correlating to 95th percentile when normalized to devices of its type), acceptable (mean 4.2 +/- 0.5 out of 5), and effective (mean 4.3 +/- 0.6 out of 5). All surrogates reported the tool helped them consider goals of care and all indicated they would recommend the tool to a friend.

conclusionsWe successfully developed a web-based tool to help individuals navigate the complexities of surrogate decision making in ICUs that has high potential for scalability. Surrogates judged the tool to be usable, acceptable, and effective. These data support proceeding to test the tool in a pilot randomized clinical trial.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFamilyIntensive Care UnitsProfessional-Family RelationsThird-Party ConsentAdultAgedCritical IllnessFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProgram DevelopmentCommunicationCritical illnessDecision makingHuman computer interactionIntensive care unitsInterventionProfessional-family relationsProgram developmentSurrogate decision makerUser-centered design methods

Identifiers

PMID31896447
PMCPMC7646226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.