Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40475327›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2025

Let's talk about death, dying, and what matters most to you in life: Pretest and piloting of a translated and adapted conversation game.

Julia Jaschke, Sara Söling, Juliane Köberlein-Neu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Julia JaschkeCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Sara SölingCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Juliane Köberlein-NeuCenter for Health Economics and Health Services Research, Schumpeter School of Business and Economics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to pretest and pilot the German version of the Methods: The conversation game was systematically translated into German using the TRAPD process and cognitively pretested in 12 interviews. Subsequently, two observational studies were conducted: Results: The results of the cognitive pretest and the observational studies show that the conversation game was acceptable and comprehensible in both settings. Most of the participants (>92 %) reported that Conclusion: Innovation:

Indexed as

AcceptabilityAdvance care planningComprehensibilityGamification

Identifiers

PMID40475327
PMCPMC12139014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.