Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35912377›Full record

ArticleNeuroethics2022

Informal Caregivers of Patients with Disorders of Consciousness: a Qualitative Study of Communication Experiences and Information Needs with Physicians.

Karoline Boegle, Marta Bassi, Angela Comanducci, Katja Kuehlmeyer, Philipp Oehl, Theresa Raiser, Martin Rosenfelder, Jaco Diego Sitt, Chiara Valota, Lina Willacker and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Participatory Development of an International Information Brochure on the Multimodal Assessment of Disorders of Consciousness.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Karoline BoegleInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Marta BassiDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences 'Luigi Sacco', University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Angela ComanducciIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Milan, Italy.
Katja KuehlmeyerInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Philipp OehlInstitute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Theresa RaiserDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Martin RosenfelderDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Jaco Diego SittInstitut du Cerveau et de la Moelle epiniere (ICM), Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France.
Chiara ValotaDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences 'Luigi Sacco', University of Milano, Milan, Italy.
Lina WillackerDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Andreas BenderTherapiezentrum Burgau, Hospital for Neurological Rehabilitation, Burgau, Germany.
Eva GrillInstitute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377 Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITSorbonne Université · FRUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to improvements in medicine, the figures of patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) are increasing. Diagnostics of DoC and prognostication of rehabilitation outcome is challenging but necessary to evaluate recovery potential and to decide on treatment options. Such decisions should be made by doctors and patients' surrogates based on medico-ethical principles. Meeting information needs and communicating effectively with caregivers as the patients´ most common surrogate-decision makers is crucial, and challenging when novel tech-nologies are introduced. This qualitative study aims to explore information needs of informal DoC caregivers, how they manage the obtained information and their perceptions and experiences with caregiver-physician communication in facilities that implemented innovative neurodiagnostics studies. In 2021, we conducted semi-structured interviews with nine caregivers of clinically stable DoC patients in two rehabilitation centers in Italy and Germany. Participants were selected based on consecutive purposeful sampling. Caregivers were recruited at the facilities after written informed consent. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated. For analysis, we used reflexive thematic analysis according to Braun & Clarke (2006). Caregivers experienced the conversations emotionally, generally based on the value of the information provided. They reported to seek positive information, comfort and empathy with-in the communication of results of examinations. They needed detailed information to gain a deep understanding and a clear picture of their loved-one's condition. The results suggest a mismatch between the perspectives of caregivers and the perspectives of medical profession-als, and stress the need for more elaborate approaches to the communication of results of neu-rodiagnostics studies. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12152-022-09503-0.

Indexed as

CaregiversDisorder of consciousnessEffective communicationFunctional NeurodiagnosticsInformation needsQualitative study

Identifiers

PMID35912377
PMCPMC9307713
OpenAlexW4286684980

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.