ArticlePEC innovation2023
Evaluation of a French adaptation of a community-based advance serious illness planning decision aid.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Plan Well Guide™ (PWG) is a decision aid that empowers lay persons to better understand different types of care and prepares them, and their substitute decision-makers, to express both their authentic values and informed treatment preferences in anticipation of serious illness. We aimed to determine the acceptability of the newly translated French PWG and to evaluate decisional readiness and decisional conflict following its use by lay people. Methods: This is an acceptability and exploratory outcomes evaluation.Participants were requested to read and complete the French PWG and to engage in an online interview. We used the Acceptability Scale to determine the acceptability and the Preparation for Decision-making Scale and decisional conflict Scale to evaluate decisional readiness. Results: Forty-two (42) people participated. The average score on the Acceptability Scale was 18.1 (scale range: 4-20 [high-better]) and 26.6 on the Preparation for Decision-Making Scale (scale range: 6-30 [high-better]). A significant number of respondents reported needing more support to help them make better decisions. Conclusion: The French PWG has been deemed acceptable and relevant for lay people not currently facing clinical decisions. Innovation: The Plan Well Guide is innovative as it is the first decision aid empowering lay people for advance serious illness planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.