ArticlePEC innovation2023
Testing the
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relationships Between Advance Care Planning Engagement, Patients' Religious Practices, and Spirituality.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2026Article
- How Has 'What Matters to You' Been Used for Patient Care? A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Natural Language Processing to Identify Home Health Care Patients at Risk for Becoming Incapacitated With No Evident Advance Directives or Surrogates.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2024Article
- What Clinicians and Researchers Should Know About the Evolving Field of Advance Care Planning: a Narrative Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We evaluated the Methods: We purposively recruited diverse seriously ill patients and caregivers in the US. Participants completed the Workbook, a survey, and a semi-structured in-depth interview about their experience. Qualitative analysis of interviews and notes was employed to extract themes. Simple descriptive statistics were employed to analyze eight investigator authored questions. Results: Twenty-nine study participants completed twenty-one interviews and twenty-five surveys. Ratings for safety (3.87/4, SD = 0.43) and acceptability (3.59/4, SD = 0.956) were higher than ratings for ease of use (3.30/4, SD = 0.97) and usefulness (3.24/4, SD = 0.80). Qualitative analysis identified that while the workbook was safe, acceptable, easy to use, and useful, it is more important who is recommending it and how they are explaining it. Conclusion: If presented in the right way by a trustworthy person, the Innovation: The Workbook focuses on serious illness rather than end-of-life and meshes with a clinician-facing conversation guide and a health-system level intervention.
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.