ArticlePEC innovation2026
Article in PEC innovation, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this participatory design study, we investigated which inputs a workshop panel had for the content and format of an oral presentation about how to prepare for end of life, and which inputs they had for questions in two evaluation tools (questionnaires and an interview guide). Methods: We co-developed an intervention consisting of an oral presentation and evaluation tools. Two structured workshops were conducted with a workshop panel. The development followed three phases of a participatory framework: needs assessment, idea generation, and testing/retesting. The data included audio recordings, post-it notes and participant feedback. Post-it notes were thematically analyzed, inspired by affinity diagramming (the KJ Method), and feedback was analyzed by content analysis. Results: Participants identified key themes, including legal rights and ethical dilemmas related to treatment decisions, care options and pathways, psychosocial concerns regarding quality of life, clear communication with healthcare professionals, and conceptual clarity. The workshop panel suggested a narrative communication strategy to foster personal reflection and emotional resonance. Participants also recommended developing handouts to encourage further dialogue and highlighted the value of follow-up opportunities and support networks. Feedback on the presentation was on slide design, content clarity, and performance. Conclusion: This study identifies themes and formats that can guide the development of early advance care planning interventions perceived as meaningful and accessible. The findings also highlight which domains older adults consider important to address early. Innovation: This study is innovative in using a participatory co-development process with a workshop panel of older adults, relatives, and healthcare professionals to develop an early advance care planning intervention.
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.