Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32236533›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2020

Effect of Intensivist Communication in a Simulated Setting on Interpretation of Prognosis Among Family Members of Patients at High Risk of Intensive Care Unit Admission: A Randomized Trial.

Ian M Oppenheim, Emma M Lee, Scott T Vasher, Sandra E Zaeh, Joanna L Hart, Alison E Turnbull

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04239209 (The Effect of Intensivist Communication on Prognosis Interpretation by Family Members of Patients at High Risk for Intensive Care Unit Admission), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT04239209 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Intensivist Communication on Prognosis Interpretation by Family Members of Patients at High Risk for Intensive Care Unit Admission: A Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorJohns Hopkins UniversityRan2019 to 2019Enrolled302ConditionsCritical IllnessArmsIndirect - other patients, Indirect - physiology, Redirection, Direct communication
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ian M OppenheimDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Emma M LeeDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Scott T VasherDepartment of Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sandra E ZaehDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Joanna L HartDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Alison E TurnbullDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

MULTIDISCIPLINARY TRAINING PROGRAM IN LUNG DISEASEST32HL007534 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Nadia N Hansel, Larissa A. Shimoda · 1985 to 2026
$28.3M
Understanding Response Shift in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) survivorsK01HL141637 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TURNBULL, ALISON · 2018 to 2022
$853k
Optimizing Outcome Predictions among Patients with Smoking-Associated Lung DiseaseK23HL132065 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HART, JOANNA LEE · 2017 to 2020
$693k
Understanding the Impact of School Environment on Asthma Outcomes to Inform ImplementationF32HL149195 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ZAEH, SANDRA · 2019 to 2020
$143k
NHLBI NIH HHS F32 HL149195NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL141637NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL132065NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007534
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Discordance about prognosis between a patient's health care decision-making surrogate and the treating intensivist is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). Empowering families, friends, and caregivers of patients who are critically ill to make informed decisions about care is important, but it is unclear how best to communicate prognostic information to surrogates when a patient is expected to die. Objective: To determine whether family members, who are often health care decision-making surrogates, interpret intensivists as being more optimistic when questions about prognosis in the ICU are answered indirectly. Design, Setting, and Participants: This web-based randomized trial was conducted between September 27, 2019, and October 17, 2019, among a national sample of adult children, spouses, partners, or siblings of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who were receiving long-term oxygen therapy. Participants were shown video vignettes depicting an intensivist answering a standardized question about the prognosis of a patient at high risk of death on day 3 of ICU admission. Participants were excluded if they had worked as a physician, nurse, or advanced health care practitioner. Data were analyzed from October 18, 2019, to November 12, 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized to view 1 of 4 intensivist communication styles in response to the question "What do you think is most likely to happen?": (1) a direct response (control), (2) an indirect response comparing the patient's condition with that of other patients, (3) an indirect response describing the patient's deteriorating physiological condition, or (4) redirection to a discussion of the patient's values and goals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant responses to 2 questions: (1) "If you had to guess, what do you think the doctor thinks is the chance that your loved one will survive this hospitalization?" and (2) "What do you think are the chances that your loved one will survive this hospitalization?" answered using a 0% to 100% probability scale. Results: Among 302 participants (median [interquartile range] age, 49 [38-59] years; 204 [68%] women) included in the trial, 165 (55%) were adult children of the individual with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; 77 participants were randomized to view a direct response, 77 participants were randomized to view an indirect response referencing other patients, 68 participants were randomized to view an indirect response referencing physiological condition, and 80 participants were randomized to view a redirection response. Compared with participants who viewed a direct response, participants who viewed an indirect response referencing other patients (β = 10 [95% CI, 1-19]; P = .03), physiological condition (β = 10 [95% CI, 0-19]; P = .04), or redirection to a discussion of the patient's values and goals (β = 19 [95% CI, 10-28]; P < .001) perceived the intensivist to have a significantly more optimistic prognostic estimate. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that family members interpret indirect or redirection responses to questions about prognosis in the ICU setting as more optimistic than direct responses. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04239209.

Indexed as

AdultCase-Control StudiesCommunicationCritical IllnessDecision MakingFamilyFemaleHospitalizationHumansIntensive Care UnitsInternet-Based InterventionMaleMiddle AgedOxygenPerceptionProfessional-Family RelationsOxygen

Identifiers

PMID32236533
PMCPMC7113731
OpenAlexW3014511030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.