ArticlePEC innovation2024
Exploring perceptions of online calculators for identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of dying: A qualitative study.
Article in PEC innovation, 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.
- Hospice Care in the Era of AI: Hospices' Views on Data-Driven Tools to Support Live Discharge Decisions.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the acceptability, value, and perceived barriers of using electronic risk calculators for predicting and communicating the risk of death in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: One focus group and eight interviews were conducted with 16 participants with experience caring for patients or family members at end of life. A prototype mortality risk tool was used to anchor discussions. Data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis approach. Results: Five themes emerged: acceptability, communication, barriers to use, broadening the circle of care, and tool limitations. Participants found the tool helpful for preparation, planning, and providing care, but disagreed on its community availability. Personalized risk estimates were valued for facilitating early goals of care conversations and normalizing discussions about death. However, concerns were raised about the tool's interpretation for individuals with different language, cultural, or educational backgrounds. Conclusions: While electronic risk calculators were found to be acceptable, balancing autonomy with varying preferences for receiving the information and potential need for support is crucial. Innovation: Providing patient-oriented life-expectancy estimates can enhance decisional capacity and facilitate shared decision-making between patients, their families, and healthcare professionals. Further research is needed to explore effective communication of personalized risk tools and additional benefits, harms, and barriers to implementation.
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.