ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2024
A visual approach to facilitating conversations about supportive care options in the context of cognitive impairment.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPersons with cognitive impairment may experience difficulties with language and cognition that interfere with their ability to communicate about health-related decision making.
objectiveWe developed a visual elicitation technique to facilitate conversations about preferences concerning potential future supportive care needs and explored the utility of this technique in a qualitative interview study.
methodsWe conducted 15 online interviews with persons with mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia, using storytelling and a virtual tool designed to facilitate discussion about preferences for supportive care. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive qualitative data analysis method. We report our findings with respect to several main themes. First, we considered participants' perspectives on supportive care. Next, we examined the utility of the tool for engaging participants in conversation through two themes: cognitive and communicative processes exhibited by participants; and dialogic interactions between the interviewer and the participant.
resultsWith respect to participants' perspectives on supportive care, common themes included considerations relating to informal caregivers such as availability and burden, and the quality of care options such as paid caregivers. Other themes, such as the importance of making decisions as a family, considerations related to facing these challenges on one's own, and the fluid nature of decision making, also emerged. Common communicative processes included not being responsive to the question and unclear responses. Common cognitive processes included uncertainty and introspection, or self-awareness, of one's cognitive abilities. Last, we examined dialogic interactions between the participant and the interviewer to better understand engagement with the tool. The interviewer was active in using the visualization tool to facilitate the conversation, and participants engaged with the interface to varying degrees. Some participants expressed greater agency and involvement through suggesting images, elaborating on their or the interviewer's comments, and suggesting icon labels.
conclusionThis article presents a visual method to engage older adults with cognitive impairment in active dialogue about complex decisions. Though designed for a research setting, the diverse communication and participant-interviewer interaction patterns observed in this study suggest that the tool might be adapted for use in clinical or community settings.
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.