Cargando…
Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness. METHODS: The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9726972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30733208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001698 |
_version_ | 1784844911113142272 |
---|---|
author | You, John J Allatt, Peter Howard, Michelle Robinson, Carole A Simon, Jessica Sudore, Rebecca Tan, Amy Bernard, Carrie Swinton, Marilyn Jiang, Xuran Klein, Doug McKenzie, Michael Fyles, Gillian Heyland, Daren Keith |
author_facet | You, John J Allatt, Peter Howard, Michelle Robinson, Carole A Simon, Jessica Sudore, Rebecca Tan, Amy Bernard, Carrie Swinton, Marilyn Jiang, Xuran Klein, Doug McKenzie, Michael Fyles, Gillian Heyland, Daren Keith |
author_sort | You, John J |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness. METHODS: The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before–after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1–2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one’s values. RESULTS: In the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (−6.7 points, 95% CI −11.1 to −2.3, p=0.003; 0–100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (−10.0 points, 95% CI −17.3 to −2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1–5 scale; N=61). CONCLUSIONS: The Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9726972 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97269722022-12-08 Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness You, John J Allatt, Peter Howard, Michelle Robinson, Carole A Simon, Jessica Sudore, Rebecca Tan, Amy Bernard, Carrie Swinton, Marilyn Jiang, Xuran Klein, Doug McKenzie, Michael Fyles, Gillian Heyland, Daren Keith BMJ Support Palliat Care Original Research OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a values clarification tool, the Short Graphic Values History Tool (GVHT), designed to support person-centred decision making during serious illness. METHODS: The development phase included input from experts and laypersons and assessed acceptability with patients/family members. In the validation phase, we recruited additional participants into a before–after study. Our primary validation hypothesis was that the tool would reduce scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) at 1–2 weeks of follow-up. Our secondary validation hypotheses were that the tool would improve values clarity (reduce scores) more than other DCS subscales and increase engagement in advance care planning (ACP) processes related to identification and discussion of one’s values. RESULTS: In the development phase, the tool received positive overall ratings from 22 patients/family members in hospital (mean score 4.3; 1=very poor; 5=very good) and family practice (mean score 4.5) settings. In the validation phase, we enrolled 157 patients (mean age 71.8 years) from family practice, cancer clinic and hospital settings. After tool completion, decisional conflict decreased (−6.7 points, 95% CI −11.1 to −2.3, p=0.003; 0–100 scale; N=100), with the most improvement seen in the values clarity subscale (−10.0 points, 95% CI −17.3 to −2.7, p=0.008; N=100), and the ACP-Values process score increased (+0.4 points, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.6, p=0.001; 1–5 scale; N=61). CONCLUSIONS: The Short GVHT is acceptable to end users and has some measure of validity. Further study to evaluate its impact on decision making during serious illness is warranted. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-12 2019-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9726972/ /pubmed/30733208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001698 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research You, John J Allatt, Peter Howard, Michelle Robinson, Carole A Simon, Jessica Sudore, Rebecca Tan, Amy Bernard, Carrie Swinton, Marilyn Jiang, Xuran Klein, Doug McKenzie, Michael Fyles, Gillian Heyland, Daren Keith Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness |
title | Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness |
title_full | Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness |
title_fullStr | Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness |
title_full_unstemmed | Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness |
title_short | Short Graphic Values History Tool for decision making during serious illness |
title_sort | short graphic values history tool for decision making during serious illness |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9726972/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30733208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2018-001698 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT youjohnj shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT allattpeter shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT howardmichelle shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT robinsoncarolea shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT simonjessica shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT sudorerebecca shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT tanamy shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT bernardcarrie shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT swintonmarilyn shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT jiangxuran shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT kleindoug shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT mckenziemichael shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT fylesgillian shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness AT heylanddarenkeith shortgraphicvalueshistorytoolfordecisionmakingduringseriousillness |