ArticlePloS one2024
Barriers and facilitators for cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with people with heart failure.
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.
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.
- Accelerating the Adoption of Best Practice Research in Resuscitation Through Implementation Science: Identifying Gaps and Pathways.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCare planning with people with advanced heart failure enables appropriate care, and prevents futile interventions, such as cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
aimTo explore what motivates clinicians to conduct, and people with heart failure and their carers, to engage in well-conducted CPR discussions.
methodsIn-depth remote interviews with i) people with heart failure and self-reported daily symptoms (≥ 3 months), ii) informal carers and, iii) clinicians recruited through social media and professional groups, team contacts and snowballing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and subjected to framework analysis. Findings were mapped to the Capabilities, Opportunities, Motivation-Behaviour change model.
resultsTwo themes were generated from 23 interviews: a) the cardio-pulmonary resuscitation discussion: preparation; who should conduct discussions; what should happen during discussions; impact on future discussions; b) Understanding of the: patient's health status; and purpose and likely outcome of cardio-pulmonary resuscitation. For clinicians, ensuring preparation time, education, and support provided physical and psychological capability. For all, constructive experiences and a realistic understanding of health status and likely cardio-pulmonary resuscitation outcome motivated engagement in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation discussions providing opportunity for patient involvement in decision-making.
conclusionsFor all, constructive past experiences of important conversations motivates engagement with CPR discussions. A realistic understanding of health status and likely cardio-pulmonary resuscitation outcome (all stakeholders), and training, skills, preparation and multidisciplinary support (clinicians) provide physical and psychological capability. Findings should inform organisational structures and training to ensure opportunity for this important clinical practice to take place.
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.