Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34167538›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2021

Video decision support tool promoting values conversations in advanced care planning in cancer: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

Natasha Michael, Clare O'Callaghan, Ekavi Georgousopoulou, Adelaide Melia, Merlina Sulistio, David Kissane

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Joanna Briggs Institute Framework Approach to Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Patient-caregiver communication concordance in cancer-refinement of the Cancer Communication Assessment Tool in an Australian sample.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    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.

Natasha MichaelSupportive, Psychosocial and Palliative Care Research Department, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. nmichael@cabrini.com.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3603-1258
Clare O'CallaghanSupportive, Psychosocial and Palliative Care Research Department, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ekavi GeorgousopoulouSchool of Medicine, Sydney Campus, University of Notre Dame Australia Darlinghurst, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia.
Adelaide MeliaSupportive, Psychosocial and Palliative Care Research Department, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Merlina SulistioSupportive, Psychosocial and Palliative Care Research Department, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
David KissaneSupportive, Psychosocial and Palliative Care Research Department, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Cabrini Hospital · AUSt Vincent's Hospital Melbourne · AUThe University of Notre Dame Australia · AU

Funding

Bethlehem Griffiths Research Foundation BGRF 1709
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViews on advance care planning (ACP) has shifted from a focus solely on treatment decisions at the end-of-life and medically orientated advanced directives to encouraging conversations on personal values and life goals, patient-caregiver communication and decision making, and family preparation. This study will evaluate the potential utility of a video decision support tool (VDST) that models values-based ACP discussions between cancer patients and their nominated caregivers to enable patients and families to achieve shared-decisions when completing ACP's.

methodsThis open-label, parallel-arm, phase II randomised control trial will recruit cancer patient-caregiver dyads across a large health network. Previously used written vignettes will be converted to video vignettes using the recommended methodology. Participants will be ≥18 years and be able to complete questionnaires. Dyads will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a usual care (UC) or VDST group. The VDST group will watch a video of several patient-caregiver dyads communicating personal values across different cancer trajectory stages and will receive verbal and written ACP information. The UC group will receive verbal and written ACP information. Patient and caregiver data will be collected individually via an anonymous questionnaire developed for the study, pre and post the UC and VDST intervention. Our primary outcome will be ACP completion rates. Secondarily, we will compare patient-caregiver (i) attitudes towards ACP, (ii) congruence in communication, and (iii) preparation for decision-making.

conclusionWe need to continue to explore innovative ways to engage cancer patients in ACP. This study will be the first VDST study to attempt to integrate values-based conversations into an ACP intervention. This pilot study's findings will assist with further refinement of the VDST and planning for a future multisite study.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No: ACTRN12620001035910 . Registered 12 October 2020. Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningNeoplasmsAustraliaCommunicationHumansPilot ProjectsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdvance care planningCancerCommunicationComplex interventionDecision aidEnd-of-life care

Identifiers

PMID34167538
PMCPMC8229383
OpenAlexW3176314543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.