Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42564371›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

The 4-Circles Tool 2.0-A Tool to Prepare Older Patients for Shared Decision Making: A Developmental and Feasibility Study.

Stephanie von Helden-Lenzen, Maartje Feuler, Albine Moser, Jolanda Friesen-Storms, Ruth Dalemans, Emmylou Beekman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. 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

6 authors.

Stephanie von Helden-LenzenResearch Center Autonomy and Participation in Care and Welfare, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7803-8506
Maartje FeulerParamedical Center Zuid, Sittard, the Netherlands.
Albine MoserResearch Center Autonomy and Participation in Care and Welfare, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Jolanda Friesen-StormsResearch Center Autonomy and Participation in Care and Welfare, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Ruth DalemansResearch Center Autonomy and Participation in Care and Welfare, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.
Emmylou BeekmanResearch Center Autonomy and Participation in Care and Welfare, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Heerlen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making is an effective strategy for collaborative goal setting and action planning with older patients. However, many older patients feel unable to actively participate. Increasing patient participation requires preparing patients for this process. The 4-Circles tool, a validated visual tool designed to support the goal setting phase of shared decision making, might serve as a preparation tool. This study describes the development of the 4-Circles tool 2.0 and examines its feasibility. Methods: We applied a human-centered design consisting of 3 phases: developing a prototype, exploring feasibility, and finalizing the 4-Circles tool 2.0. Data were collected through co-creation sessions with older patients ( Results: The 4-Circles tool 2.0 is a self-reflection booklet accompanied by training for professionals. The feasibility analysis showed that professionals gained deeper insights into older patients' personal goals. Older patients reported finding it easier to articulate their goals. However, professionals perceived that some older patients might lack the cognitive abilities required to complete the tool, adopted a passive role, or feared giving "wrong" answers. For some older patients, goal setting was not considered valuable because they perceived their potential for improvement as limited. Conclusion and Implications: Feasibility testing of the 4-Circles tool 2.0 showed that professionals gained deeper insights into older patients' goals. However, using self-reflection tools such as the 4-Circles tool 2.0 may be challenging because of the power asymmetry experienced between professionals and older patients. This issue should be addressed more actively during the implementation of such tools.

Indexed as

4-Circles tool 2.0experiences power asymmetryfeasibilitygoal settingolder patientsshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID42564371
PMCPMC13443255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.