ArticlePEC innovation2025
Perceived acceptability of a prototype toolkit to support patients and informal caregivers to express their perspectives in palliative care conversations.
Article in PEC innovation, 2025. 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.
- Family cohesion and adaptability in heart failure: an APIMeM analysis of symptom perception and spousal caregiving on patient self-care.Frontiers in medicine · 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
Background: Patients and informal caregivers experience challenges to express their personal perspectives in conversations with healthcare professionals (HCPs). A prototype toolkit, which consists of a hardcopy version and a website, was developed to address their challenges. The aim of this study is to gain insight into the perceived acceptability of this prototype toolkit. Method: Patients and informal caregivers end users and HCPs participated in semi-structured individual or group interviews. This resulted in two databases of qualitative data which were thematically analysed. Results: Twenty-two end users and twelve HCPs participated in this study. There is appreciation for the content and use of the prototype toolkit, with the hardcopy version of the toolkit being valued more than the website. Moreover, the use of the toolkit may strengthen end users' power and control and may support HCPs in tailoring communication and care. End users and HCPs recommendations for implementation are to further develop the prototype toolkit, provide HCPs with information, instruction and support and create facilitating conditions in healthcare. Conclusion: High appreciation of the hardcopy version and the practical value are positive indicators of end users'and HCPS perceived acceptability of the prototype toolkit. However, the content of the toolkit is experienced as being too extensive, with the hardcopy version experienced as being incomplete without the website and the website is experienced as being too complicated to use. Further development and testing of the prototype toolkit is required to increase its acceptability by end users and HCPs. Innovation: In this study a Design Thinking approach was used to test study the acceptability of a prototype toolkit by endusers and HCPs. This approach can contribute to a succesfull implementation of the toolkit and its effectiveness.
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.