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