Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36459410›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

The Web-Based Advance Care Planning Program "Explore Your Preferences for Treatment and Care": Development, Pilot Study, and Before-and-After Evaluation.

Doris van der Smissen, Judith A C Rietjens, Sandra van Dulmen, Ton Drenthen, F Ragnhild M D Vrijaldenhoven-Haitsma, Marijke Wulp, Agnes van der Heide, Ida J Korfage

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Complex advance care planning intervention in general practice (ACP-GP): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Doris van der SmissenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2363-9416
Judith A C RietjensDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0538-5603
Sandra van DulmenNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1651-7544
Ton DrenthenDutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3417-686X
F Ragnhild M D Vrijaldenhoven-HaitsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3813-6432
Marijke WulpAgora, Bunnik, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0447-6391
Agnes van der HeideDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5584-4305
Ida J KorfageDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6538-9115
Erasmus MC · NLAgora · NLDutch College of General Practitioners · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeb-based advance care planning (ACP) programs may support patients in thinking about and discussing their preferences for future treatment and care. However, they are not widely available, and only a limited number of programs are evidence based.

objectiveWe aimed to develop and evaluate an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program that guides users through the process of thinking about, discussing, and recording of preferences for treatment and care.

methodsThe program "Explore your preferences for treatment and care" was developed, pilot-tested on feasibility, and subsequently evaluated; engagement in ACP was assessed before program completion and 2 months after program completion using the ACP Engagement Survey (score 1-5) among 147 persons with chronic disease. Usability (score 0-100) and user satisfaction (score 1-5) were also assessed.

resultsACP engagement increased from 2.8 before program completion to 3.0 two months after program completion (P<.001); contemplation about ACP increased from 2.6 to 2.8 (P=.003), and readiness for ACP increased from 2.2 to 2.5 (P<.001). No changes were found for knowledge about ACP (3.0-3.2; P=.07) and self-efficacy for ACP (3.8-3.8; P=.25). The program was perceived as usable (mean 70, SD 13), attractive (mean 3.8, SD 0.7), and comprehensible (mean 4.2, SD 0.6).

conclusionsWe developed an evidence-based, interactive web-based ACP program in cocreation with patients, relatives, and health care professionals. Before-and-after evaluation showed that the program can support people in taking first steps in ACP and in reflecting on preferences for treatment and care, by guiding them through the process of ACP using a stepwise approach. Participants perceived the program as usable and understandable, and they were satisfied with the program and with the amount of information. Health care professionals may use the program as a tool to start ACP discussions with their patients. The program may increase awareness of ACP.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningHealth PersonnelHumansInternetKnowledgePilot Projectsadvance care planningchronic diseasedecision aidseHealthhealth communicationinternet-based interventionpatient-centered carepatient education

Identifiers

PMID36459410
PMCPMC9758635
OpenAlexW4311191112

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.