Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39137172›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Patient education and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation preferences of patients and providers in COVID care.

Ethan D Borre, Matthew L Maciejewski, Arlene Fink, Melissa Burnside, J Todd Purves, Charles D Scales, Eddy Fan, Bhawandip Sandhu, Kevin Pignone, Caroline Palmer and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

13 authors.

Ethan D BorreDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Matthew L MaciejewskiDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1765-5938
Arlene FinkDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Melissa BurnsideDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
J Todd PurvesDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Charles D ScalesDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7887-0204
Eddy FanInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine and the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Bhawandip SandhuUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kevin PignoneUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Caroline PalmerDuke Kunshan University, Kunshan, China.
Carrington WebbUniversity of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America.
Dana S GuggenheimDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Yuqi ZhangCenter for Health Services Research in Primary Care, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

Economic Evaluation and Research Prioritization of Adult Hearing Screening in the USF30DC019846 · NIDCD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BORRE, ETHAN D · 2021 to 2022
$88k
NIDCD NIH HHS F30 DC019846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents an important but limited treatment for patients with severe COVID-19. We assessed the effects of an educational intervention on a person's ECMO care preference and examined whether patients and providers had similar ECMO preferences.

methodsIn the Video+Survey group, patients watched an educational video about ECMO's purpose, benefits, and risks followed by an assessment of ECMO knowledge and care preferences in seven scenarios varying by hypothetical patient age, function, and comorbidities. Patients in the Survey Only group and providers didn't watch the video. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of agreement for each ECMO scenario between the two patient groups and then between all patients and providers.

resultsVideo+Survey patients were more likely (64% vs. 17%; p = 0.02) to correctly answer all ECMO knowledge questions than Survey Only patients. Patients in both groups agreed that ECMO should be considered across all hypothetical scenarios, with predicted agreement above 65%. In adjusted analyses, patients and providers had similar predicted agreement for ECMO consideration across six of the seven scenarios, but patients showed greater preference (84% vs. 41%, p = 0.003) for the scenario of a functionally dependent 65-year-old with comorbidities than providers. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsAn educational video increased a person's ECMO knowledge but did not change their ECMO preferences. Clinicians were less likely than patients to recommend ECMO for older adults, so advanced care planning discussion between patients and providers about treatment options in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is critical.

Indexed as

COVID-19Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationPatient Education as TopicPatient PreferenceAdultAgedFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Surveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39137172
PMCPMC11321548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.