Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34825279›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Mixed methods analysis of hospice staff perceptions and shared decision making practices in hospice.

Debra Parker Oliver, Karla T Washington, Kyle Pitzer, Lori Popejoy, Patrick White, Audrey S Wallace, Amy Grimsley, George Demiris

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02929108 (ACCESS), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT02929108 nacompletednot on this map

ACCESS (Access for Cancer Caregivers for Education and Support for Shared Decision)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2017 to 2021Enrolled489ConditionsCancer, PainArmsFacebook, ACCESS
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

8 authors.

Debra Parker OliverIra Kodner Professor of Supportive Care, Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, Goldfarb School of Nursing, 4590 Children's Place, Mailstop 90-29-931, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. oliverd@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8354-0859
Karla T WashingtonDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Kyle PitzerDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Lori PopejoyAssociate Dean for Innovation and Partnerships, Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA.
Patrick WhiteStokes Family Endowed Chair and Chief, Division of Palliative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA.
Audrey S WallaceRadiation Oncology, St. Louis Veteran Health Administration Medical Center, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Amy GrimsleySinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA.
George DemirisPenn Integrates Knowledge University Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Health Sciences, School of Nursing, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.

Funding

ACCESS_Access for Cancer Caregivers to Education and Support for Shared decisionmakingR01CA203999 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PARKER OLIVER, DEBRA · 2017 to 2021
$3.6M
NCI NIH HHS 7R01CA203999NCI NIH HHS R01 CA203999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeShared decision making has been a long-standing practice in oncology and, despite a lack of research on the subject, is a central part of the philosophical foundation of hospice. This mixed methods study examined the perceptions of staff regarding shared decision making and their use of shared decision elements in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings.

methodsThe revised Leeds Attitude to Concordance scale (LatConII) was used to measure the attitudes of hospice staff toward shared decision making. Field notes and transcripts of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers as participants were coded to identify 9 theory-driven shared decision making elements. The results were mixed in a matrix analysis comparing attitudes with practice. Three transcripts demonstrate the variance in the shared decision making process between hospice teams.

resultsHospice staff reported overall positive views on shared decision making; however, these views differed depending on participants' age and position. The extent to which staff views were aligned with the observed use of shared decision making elements in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings varied.

conclusionPolicy and practice conditions can make shared decision making challenging during hospice interdisciplinary team meetings despite support for the process by staff.

trial registrationThis study is a sub-study of a parent study registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02929108).

Indexed as

Hospice CareHospicesCaregiversDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedHumansCaregivingClinical TrialDecision makingHospiceInterventionPsychosocial

Identifiers

PMID34825279
PMCPMC9067598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.