Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32969195›Full record

ReviewESC heart failure2020

Dying to know: prognosis communication in heart failure.

Casey E Cavanagh, Lindsey Rosman, Erica S Spatz, Terri Fried, Parul U Gandhi, Richard J Soucier, Matthew M Burg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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. A process-based approach to health-related quality of life as a "way of living".Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

7 authors.

Casey E CavanaghDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2464-5041
Lindsey RosmanDepartment of Medicine-Cardiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Erica S SpatzSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Terri FriedVA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA.
Parul U GandhiSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Richard J SoucierSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Matthew M BurgSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prognosis communication in heart failure is often narrowly defined as a discussion of life expectancy, but as clinical guidelines and research suggest, these discussions should provide a broader understanding of the disease, including information about disease trajectory, the experiences of living with heart failure, potential burden on patients and families, and mortality. Furthermore, despite clinical guidelines recommending early discussions, evidence suggests that these discussions occur infrequently or late in the disease trajectory. We review the literature concerning patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives on discussions of this type, including the frequency, timing, desire for, effects of, and barriers to their occurrence. We propose an alternate view of prognosis communication, in which the patient and family/caregiver are educated about the nature of the disease at the time of diagnosis, and a process of engagement is undertaken so that the patient's full participation in their care is marshalled, and the care team engages the patient in the informed decision making that will guide care throughout the disease trajectory. We also identify and discuss evidence gaps concerning (i) patient preferences and readiness for prognosis information along the trajectory; (ii) best practices for communicating prognosis information; and (iii) effects of prognosis communication on patient's quality of life, mental health, engagement in critical self-care, and clinical outcomes. Research is needed to determine best practices for engaging patients in prognosis communication and for evaluating the effects of this communication on patient engagement and clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

CommunicationDisease progressionEnd of lifeHeart failurePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID32969195
PMCPMC7754721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.