ArticleBMC geriatrics2022
What matters and influence resuscitation preference? Development, field testing, and structural validation of items among older patients in the emergency department.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecisions about resuscitation preference is an essential part of patient-centered care but a prerequisite is having an idea about which questions to ask and understand how such questions may be clustered in dimensions. The European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021 encourages resuscitation shared decision making in emergency care treatment plans and needs and experiences of people approaching end-of-life have been characterized within the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions. We aimed to develop, test, and validate the dimensionality of items that may influence resuscitation preference in older Emergency Department (ED) patients.
methodsA 36-item questionnaire was designed based on qualitative interviews exploring what matters and what may influence resuscitation preference and existing literature. Items were organized in physical, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions. Initial pilot-testing to assess content validity included ten older community-dwelling persons. Field-testing, confirmatory factor analysis and post-hoc bifactor analysis was performed on 269 older ED patients. Several model fit indexes and reliability coefficients (explained common variance (ECV) and omega values) were computed to evaluate structural validity, dimensionality, and model-based reliability.
resultsItems were reduced from 36 to 26 in field testing. Items concerning religious beliefs from the spiritual dimension were misunderstood and deemed unimportant by older ED patients. Remaining items concerned physical functioning in daily living, coping, self-control in life, optimism, overall mood, quality of life and social participation in life. Confirmatory factor analysis displayed poor fit, whereas post-hoc bifactor analysis displayed satisfactory goodness of fit (χ
conclusionsWe developed a questionnaire and investigated the dimensionality of what matters and may influence resuscitation preference among older ED patients. We could not confirm a spiritual dimension. Also, in bifactor analysis the expected dimensions were overruled by an overall explanatory general factor suggesting independence to be of particular importance for clinicians practicing resuscitation discussions in EDs. Studies to investigate how independence may relate to patients' choice of resuscitation preference are needed.
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.