Delivering Prognostic News to Older People with Chronic Disease: What Format Preference and Level of Involvement in Decision Making? A Hospital Survey.

Ebony T Lewis, Kathrine Hammill, Rebekah Culbert, Madeleen van der Merwe, Ashlyn Sahay, Robin Turner, Magnolia Cardona

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Ebony T LewisSchool of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9260-3727

Kathrine HammillSchool of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown 2560, Australia.

Rebekah CulbertOccupational Therapy Services, Camden and Campbelltown Hospitals, Campbelltown 2560, Australia.

Madeleen van der MerweInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Robina 4226, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7871-4300

Ashlyn SahaySchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, Central Queensland University, Mackay 4740, Australia.

Robin TurnerBiostatistics Unit, Otago Medical School, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8540-7365

Magnolia CardonaInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Robina 4226, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6499-2705

Funding

Western Sydney University's Women's Fellowship grant n/a

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared decision making near end of life is a balancing act of communicating prognosis to patients and their surrogates/families and engaging them in considering value-concordant management choices. This cross-sectional survey aimed to determine the format in which older patients with chronic illnesses would prefer to receive prognostic information on their treatment options and disease progression, and their desired level of engagement in decision making. With a 60% participation rate, 139 inpatients in two hospitals and five surrogates were presented with six hypothetical scenarios with a randomly assigned sequence: verbal and written summary, graph, table, photo, video, and pamphlet. The majority (76%) of respondents chose the traditional verbal communication of prognosis by their doctor with a written summary as a reference and to share with family; the second choice was a condition-specific pamphlet (63%). Many found the graph and photo to be distressing (36% and 42%, respectively). Most (71%) wanted to know everything about their condition trajectory, and 63% chose shared decision making rather than completely autonomous or full delegation to clinicians or family. There were no gender differentials between wanting to know it all, supporting shared decision making or the preferred format for breaking news (

Indexed as

chronic diseasedecision makinghospitalolder adultspatient preferenceprognosissurvey

Identifiers

PMID36767019

DOI10.3390/healthcare11030444

PMCPMC9913994

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.