Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39040661›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2024

Exploring perceptions of online calculators for identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of dying: A qualitative study.

Carol Bennett, Sarah Beach, Karen Pacheco, Amy T Hsu, Peter Tanuseputro, Douglas G Manuel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Carol BennettClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Sarah BeachClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Karen PachecoClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Amy T HsuDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Peter TanuseputroClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Douglas G ManuelClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID39040661
PMCPMC11260570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.