ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
Clinician Perspectives on Group Visits for Advance Care Planning Among Caregivers and Older Adult Patients With Heart Failure.
Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. 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, 5 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is critical for older adults with heart failure; however, patient-level and clinician-level barriers exist. Although a group visit (GV) approach to engage patients in ACP has proven effective among general geriatric populations, little is known about clinician perceptions/likelihood of referral.
methodsQualitative study to understand clinician perspectives on GVs for ACP among older adult patients with heart failure and caregivers. Twenty physicians and advance practice providers participated in telephone-based interviews guided by a semistructured research protocol. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach.
resultsResults highlight variability in clinician engagement in ACP but greater agreement around the factors that prompt discussions. Qualitative themes included (1) inherent properties of GVs (characteristics that make GVs ideal for most but less ideal for some, risk-to-benefit ratio); (2) purpose of GVs (general education, "priming the pump" for subsequent discussions, providing tools for action); and (3) format and procedures for GVs (inclusion/exclusion considerations, organizing by unifying characteristic, link back to clinicians).
conclusionsThis is the first study to gain clinician insights into ACP GVs specific to patients and caregivers affected by heart failure. Results shed light on an important topic and suggest key considerations for conducting GVs for ACP.
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.