Supporting shared decision-making about cardiopulmonary resuscitation using a video-based decision-support intervention in a hospital setting: a multisite before–after pilot study

Article Figures & Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1:
Flow diagram showing selection of study participants. *May have been excluded for more than 1 reason.

Table 1:

Study population sociodemographic and health characteristics

Characteristic	No. (%) of participants^*
Characteristic	Patients n = 43	Family members n = 28
Age, yr, mean ± SD (range)	79.0 ± 11.4 (56–95)	61.0 ± 10.0 (47–83)
Female sex	23 (53)	25 (89)
Ethnicity
Asian/Pacific Islander	0 (0)	2 (7)
African/black North American	0 (0)	1 (4)
White	42 (98)	23 (82)
First Nations/Inuit/Metis	0 (0)	1 (4)
East Indian	1 (2)	0 (0)
Other	0 (0)	1 (4)
Formal religious group
Protestant	17 (40)	8 (29)
Catholic	11 (26)	11 (39)
Muslim	0 (0)	1 (4)
Jewish	1 (2)	0 (0)
None	11 (26)	6 (21)
Other	3 (7)	2 (7)
Highest level of education
Some high school	19 (44)	2 (7)
Completed high school	15 (35)	10 (36)
Some university education or completed other postsecondary program	7 (16)	8 (29)
University undergraduate degree	2 (5)	5 (18)
University graduate degree	0 (0)	3 (11)
Place of residence in prior month
Own home	36 (84)	–
Retirement residence	5 (12)	–
Rehabilitation facility	1 (2)	–
Other	1 (2)	–
Frailty^†^‡
Well	3 (7)	–
Managing well	5 (12)	–
Vulnerable	15 (35)	–
Mildly frail	9 (21)	–
Moderately frail	5 (12)	–
Severely frail	1 (2)	–
Missing	5 (12)	–
Self-rated quality of life^†
Excellent	3 (7)	–
Very good	9 (21)	–
Good	18 (42)	–
Fair	9 (21)	–
Poor	4 (9)	–

Note: SD = standard deviation.
* Except where noted otherwise.
† Based on participant report (patient him- or herself, or family member on behalf of a nonparticipating patient).
‡ Assessed with the Clinical Frailty Scale. (35)

Table 2:

Acceptability of cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision video

Questionnaire item	No. (%) of participants n = 71
Amount of information
Much less than I needed	1 (1)
A little less than I needed	5 (7)
About the right amount	58 (82)
A little more than I needed	3 (4)
A lot more than I needed	3 (4)
Missing	1 (1)
Balance of information about CPR
Clearly slanted toward having CPR	3 (4)
A little slanted toward having CPR	8 (11)
Completely balanced	46 (65)
A little slanted toward not having CPR	12 (17)
Clearly slanted toward not having CPR	1 (1)
Missing	1 (1)
Clarity of information
Many things were unclear	1 (1)
Some things were clear	1 (1)
Most things were clear	23 (32)
Everything was clear	46 (65)
Helpfulness in making decisions about CPR
Not helpful	3 (4)
A little helpful	2 (3)
Somewhat helpful	35 (49)
Very helpful	31 (44)
Would recommend to others
I would definitely not recommend it	1 (1)
I would probably not recommend it	1 (1)
I would probably recommend it	26 (37)
I would definitely recommend it	43 (61)
Overall rating
Poor	2 (3)
Fair	3 (4)
Good	35 (49)
Very good	21 (30)
Excellent	9 (13)
Missing	1 (1)

Table 3:

Decisional Conflict Scale scores before and after the study intervention (n = 49)

Item^*	Mean score ± SD		Change (95% CI)	Effect size
Item^*	Before	After	Change (95% CI)	Effect size
Total score	25.7 ± 17.4	7.7 ± 8.9	−18.1 (−21.8 to −14.3)	1.3
Uncertainty subscore	6.1 ± 14.9	3.6 ± 11.4	−2.6 (−6.2 to 1.1)	0.2
Informed subscore	48.6 ± 31.0	15.6 ± 21.1	−33.0 (−40.8 to −25.2)	1.2
Values clarity subscore	30.1 ± 30.2	5.1 ± 12.5	−25.0 (−32.8 to −17.2)	1.1
Support subscore	12.9 ± 21.9	4.1 ± 14.2	−8.8 (−14.4 to −3.3)	0.5

Note: CI = confidence interval, SD = standard deviation.
* Total score: 0 (no decisional conflict) to 100 (extremely high decisional conflict); subscales: 0 (“good” [e.g., “extremely certain”]) to 100 (“bad” [e.g., “extremely uncertain”]).