ArticleEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Implementation of a new pictorial tool designed to facilitate communication around advance care planning: a mixed-methods feasibility study.
Article in European geriatric medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility of using a new pictorial tool (the DPAC) to structure conversations about advance care planning (ACP) with frail older adults.
methodsThis was a mixed-methods study involving older adults with advanced or chronic disease who had been admitted to the convalescence or long-stay unit of an intermediate care hospital in Barcelona, or to a geriatric care facility in the same city. One hundred patients were interviewed about their future care preferences using the DPAC, following which we gathered quantitative data relating to four feasibility indicators: acceptability (patients' view), usefulness (patients' view), applicability (time required for interview) and clinical utility (physician's view). Twenty of these patients were subsequently interviewed to explore their experience of the DPAC interview. Interview transcripts were then analysed using an inductive thematic approach.
resultsThe quantitative results supported the feasibility of using the DPAC for ACP in clinical practice. All patients (100%) found it acceptable and useful, and 86% of interviews were completed within the established time limit of 45 min. In 98% of interviews, the physician conducting the ACP conversation rated the tool as useful. Qualitative analysis revealed four main themes that described patients' experience of the DPAC interview: (1) Feeling heard and accompanied, (2) Facilitating the expression of emotions and personal concerns, (3) Appraisal of the structured pictorial format, and (4) Clarification and decision making.
conclusionThe DPAC appears to be a promising pictorial tool for structuring and engaging in meaningful conversations about future care preferences with frail older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41667888What 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.