ArticlePEC innovation2023
Acceptability and use of an online health priorities self-identification tool for older adults: A qualitative investigation.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Technology Adoption Among Older Adults With Chronic Diseases: Updated Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2025Pooled it
- Leveraging an Electronic Health Record Patient Portal to Help Patients Formulate Their Health Care Goals: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Pilot Interventions.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Clinicians' perceptions of care partner involvement in health priorities identification for people living with dementia.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
- A Mixed-Methods Usability Pilot of a Value-Goal Elicitation Tool in the Inpatient Setting for Older Adults Anticipating Post-Acute Care.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To examine the use of a web-based, self-directed health priorities identification tool for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). Methods: We recruited a gender- and racially-diverse, highly educated sample of older adults with MCCs to engage with our My Health Priorities tool, then complete a semi-structured interview. Thematic analysis was used to examine interview transcripts. Results: Twenty-one participants shared perspectives on the acceptability and use of the tool. Three themes (with eleven subthemes) were generated to describe: website Conclusion: Participants found this tool acceptable and easy to use, describing a variety of benefits of the priorities self-identification process and offered suggestions for refinement and broader implementation. Older adults with limited internet navigation abilities or misconceptions about the self-directed process may benefit from clinicians clarifying the purpose of the process or initiating priorities-aligned discussions. Innovation: This novel tool can help older adults with MCCs define what matters most for their health and healthcare, informing a variety of health decisions. This tool may enable and motivate patients to lead health priorities decision-making discussions with clinicians and care partners.
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.