ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Perception of diagnosis by family caregivers in severe brain injury patients in China.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSurrogate decision-making by family caregivers for patients with severe brain injury is influenced by the availability and understanding of relevant information and expectations for future rehabilitation. We aimed to compare the consistency of family caregivers' perceptions with clinical diagnoses and to inform their expectation of prognosis in the future.
methodsThe Coma Recovery Scale-Revised was used to assess the diagnosis of inpatients with severe brain injury between February 2019 and February 2020. A main family caregiver was included per patient. The family caregiver's perception of the patient's consciousness and expectations of future recovery were collected through questionnaires and compared consistently with the clinical diagnosis.
resultsThe final sample included 101 main family caregivers of patients (57 UWS, unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, 37 MCS, minimally conscious state, 7 EMCS, emergence from MCS) with severe brain injury. Only 57 family caregivers correctly assessed the level of consciousness as indicated by the CRS-R, showing weak consistency (Kappa = 0.217, P = 0.002). Family caregivers' demographic characteristics and CRS-R diagnosis influenced the consistency between perception and clinical diagnosis. Family caregivers who provided hands-on care to patients showed higher levels of consistent perception (AOR = 12.24, 95% CI = 2.06-73.00, P = 0.006). Compared to UWS, the family caregivers of MCS patients were more likely to have a correct perception (OR = 7.68, 95% CI = 1.34-44.06). Family caregivers had positive expectations for patients' recovery in terms of both communication and returning to normal life.
conclusionNearly half of family caregivers have inadequate understanding of their relative's level of consciousness, and most of them report overly optimistic expectations that do not align with clinical diagnosis. Providing more medical information to family caregivers to support their surrogate decision-making process is essential.
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.