Observational studyMedicine2020
An acceptability pilot of the facilitating active management in lung illness with engaged surrogates (FAMILIES) study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Approximately half of the surrogate decision makers of critically ill adults are at risk for negative emotional burden. Decision support and effective surrogate-clinician communication buffers against such experiences. The objective of this study is to evaluate the acceptability of a new surrogate-targeted educational tool that promotes engagement with clinicians and advocacy for 2 evidence-based practices in the provision of mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure: spontaneous awakening and breathing trials.A panel of 44 former patients and surrogates of a 20-bed medical intensive care unit in a large academic hospital responded to an online survey. Acceptability was measured on 3 dimensions: attitudes toward the content and delivery of information, objective knowledge translation, and subjective knowledge acquisition.More than 80% of participants found the tool to be easy to read, and over 90% felt that the tool provided actionable recommendations. A significant number of previously unsure participants were able to identify what spontaneous awakening and breathing trials are and when they occur, and 16% to 36% reported significant improvements in their subjective understanding of the target evidence-based practices, after being exposed to the educational tool.This line of work seeks to reduce surrogates' negative emotional burden while also promoting quality critical care. The educational tool provides a promising new way to promote surrogate-clinician communication, by increasing surrogates' knowledge about and encouraging advocacy for evidence-based practices in the provision of mechanical ventilation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.