Exploring perceptions of online calculators for identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of dying: A qualitative study

Carol Bennett , Sarah Beach , Karen Pacheco , Amy T. Hsu , Peter Tanuseputro , Douglas G. Manuel
{"title":"Exploring perceptions of online calculators for identifying community-dwelling older people at risk of dying: A qualitative study","authors":"Carol Bennett ,&nbsp;Sarah Beach ,&nbsp;Karen Pacheco ,&nbsp;Amy T. Hsu ,&nbsp;Peter Tanuseputro ,&nbsp;Douglas G. Manuel","doi":"10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study aimed to assess the acceptability, value, and perceived barriers of using electronic risk calculators for predicting and communicating the risk of death in community-dwelling older adults.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>One focus group and eight interviews were conducted with 16 participants with experience caring for patients or family members at end of life. A prototype mortality risk tool was used to anchor discussions. Data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis approach.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five themes emerged: acceptability, communication, barriers to use, broadening the circle of care, and tool limitations. Participants found the tool helpful for preparation, planning, and providing care, but disagreed on its community availability. Personalized risk estimates were valued for facilitating early goals of care conversations and normalizing discussions about death. However, concerns were raised about the tool's interpretation for individuals with different language, cultural, or educational backgrounds.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>While electronic risk calculators were found to be acceptable, balancing autonomy with varying preferences for receiving the information and potential need for support is crucial.</p></div><div><h3>Innovation</h3><p>Providing patient-oriented life-expectancy estimates can enhance decisional capacity and facilitate shared decision-making between patients, their families, and healthcare professionals. Further research is needed to explore effective communication of personalized risk tools and additional benefits, harms, and barriers to implementation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74407,"journal":{"name":"PEC innovation","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100313"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277262822400061X/pdfft?md5=be6fc8123aa8bb4685d253bcc3528204&pid=1-s2.0-S277262822400061X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PEC innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277262822400061X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the acceptability, value, and perceived barriers of using electronic risk calculators for predicting and communicating the risk of death in community-dwelling older adults.

Methods

One focus group and eight interviews were conducted with 16 participants with experience caring for patients or family members at end of life. A prototype mortality risk tool was used to anchor discussions. Data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis approach.

Results

Five themes emerged: acceptability, communication, barriers to use, broadening the circle of care, and tool limitations. Participants found the tool helpful for preparation, planning, and providing care, but disagreed on its community availability. Personalized risk estimates were valued for facilitating early goals of care conversations and normalizing discussions about death. However, concerns were raised about the tool's interpretation for individuals with different language, cultural, or educational backgrounds.

Conclusions

While electronic risk calculators were found to be acceptable, balancing autonomy with varying preferences for receiving the information and potential need for support is crucial.

Innovation

Providing patient-oriented life-expectancy estimates can enhance decisional capacity and facilitate shared decision-making between patients, their families, and healthcare professionals. Further research is needed to explore effective communication of personalized risk tools and additional benefits, harms, and barriers to implementation.

探索对用于识别社区居住的面临死亡风险的老年人的在线计算器的看法:定性研究
本研究旨在评估使用电子风险计算器预测和传达社区老年人死亡风险的可接受性、价值和感知障碍。方法 对 16 名具有临终病人或家属护理经验的参与者进行了一次焦点小组讨论和八次访谈。讨论以死亡风险工具原型为基础。结果出现了五个主题:可接受性、沟通、使用障碍、扩大护理范围和工具局限性。参与者认为该工具有助于准备、计划和提供护理,但对其社区可用性存在分歧。个性化的风险估计对于促进早期护理目标对话和使死亡讨论正常化很有价值。创新提供以患者为导向的预期寿命估计值可以提高决策能力,促进患者、家属和医护人员共同决策。需要开展进一步的研究,探索个性化风险工具的有效沟通方式以及其他益处、危害和实施障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PEC innovation
PEC innovation Medicine and Dentistry (General)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
147 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信