ArticleATS scholar2020
Communication Strategies in a Code Status Conversation.
Article in ATS scholar, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decision-making ethics in regards to life-sustaining interventions: when physicians refer to what other patients decide.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the emphasis on engaging in shared decision-making for decisions involving life-prolonging interventions, there remains uncertainty about which communication strategies are best to achieve shared decision-making. In this paper, we present the communication strategies used in a code status discussion in a single case audio recorded as part of a research study of how patients and physicians make decisions about the plan of care during daily rounds. When presenting this case at various forums to demonstrate our findings, we found that some clinicians viewed the communication strategies used in the case as an exemplar of shared decision-making, whereas other clinicians viewed them as perpetuating paternalism. Given this polarized reaction, the purpose of this perspective paper is to examine the communication strategies used in the code status discussion and compare those strategies with our current conceptualization of shared decision-making and communication best practices.
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.