ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024
User appraisal of a booklet for advance care planning in multiple sclerosis: a multicenter, qualitative Italian study.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesImplementation of advance care planning (ACP) in people with progressive multiple sclerosis (PwPMS) is limited. We aimed to involve users (PwPMS, significant others, and healthcare professionals involved in PwPMS care) in the evaluation and refinement of a booklet to be used during the ACP conversations.
methodsThis qualitative study consisted of cognitive interviews with PwPMS and significant others and a focus group with healthcare professionals from three Italian centers. We analyzed the interviews using the framework method and the focus group using thematic analysis.
resultsWe interviewed 10 PwPMS (3 women; median age 54 years; median Expanded Disability Status Scale score 6.0) and three significant others (2 women; 2 spouses and one daughter). The analysis yielded three themes: booklet comprehensibility and clarity, content acceptability and emotional impact, and suggestions for improvement. Twelve healthcare professionals (7 neurologists, 3 psychologists, one nurse, and one physiotherapist) participated in the focus group, whose analysis identified two themes: booklet's content importance and clarity and challenges to ACP implementation. Based on analysis results, we revised the booklet (text, layout, and pictures) and held a second-round interviews with two PwPMS and one significant other. The interviewees agreed on the revisions but reaffirmed their difficulty in dealing with the topic and the need for a physician when using the booklet.
conclusionsAppraisal of the booklet was instrumental in improving its acceptability and understandability before using it in the ConCure-SM feasibility trial. Furthermore, our data reveal a lack of familiarity with ACP practice in the Italian context.
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.