Dataset Information

Perceptions of Life Support and Advance Care Planning During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Global Study of Twitter Users.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges surrounding end-of-life planning and has been associated with increased online discussion about life support.

Research question

How has online communication about advance care planning (ACP) and specific life-sustaining interventions (LSIs) changed during the pandemic?

Study design and methods

Conversations on Twitter containing references to LSIs (eg, "ECMO") or ACP (eg, "DNR/DNI") were collected between January 2019 and May 2021. User account metadata were used to predict user demographic information and to classify users as organizations, individuals, clinicians, or influencers. The number of impressions was compared across these user categories and the content of tweets analyzed by using natural language processing models to identify topics of discussion and associated emotional sentiment.

Results

There were 202,585 unique tweets about LSIs and 67,162 unique tweets about ACP. Users who were younger, male, or influencers were more likely to discuss LSIs online. Tweets about LSIs were associated with more positive emotional sentiment scores than tweets about ACP (LSIs, 0.3; ACP, -0.2; P < .001). Among tweets about ACP, most contained personal experiences related to the death of loved ones (27%) or discussed discrimination through do-not-resuscitate orders directed at the elderly and disabled (19%). Personal experiences had the greatest retweet-to-tweet-ratio (4.7), indicating high levels of user engagement. Tweets about discrimination contained the most negative net sentiment score (-0.5).

Interpretation

The observed increase in tweets regarding LSIs and ACP suggests that Twitter was consistently used to discuss treatment modalities and preferences related to intensive care during the pandemic. Future interventions to increase online engagement with ACP may consider leveraging influencers and personal stories. Finally, we identified do-not-resuscitate-related discrimination as a commonly held public fear, which should be further explored as a barrier to ACP completion and can be proactively addressed by clinicians during bedside goals-of-care discussions.

SUBMITTER: Patel VR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8783527 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundResources for healthcare professionals, patients and those important to them relating to planning and coordinating treatment and care at the end of life are abundant, and can be difficult to navigate. However, they have not been systematically collated or catalogued in terms of their purpose, scope or intended audience.AimTo collate, categorise and characterise advance care planning and end-of-life treatment and care (EoLT + C) resources directed towards healthcare professionals, patients and their families.MethodsRapid review and thematic synthesis of resources available in the United Kingdom. Google searches and reviews of websites belonging to selected organisations that develop and publish materials relating to EoLT + C, and advance care planning were used. Materials were included if they were intended for those over 18 living in the UK and pertained to five domains of EoLT + C: identifying those approaching end of life; accessing EoLT + C services; conducting important conversations about EoLT + C and preferences; advance care planning, including recording of preferences and plans; and ensuring that plans and preferences are accessed and used by health and social care services.Results246 resources directed at healthcare professionals, patients and their families were identified, collated, catalogued and made internationally available for clinicians, researchers, patients and the public. 61 were classified as interactive, providing decision support in EoLT + C that went beyond simply providing information. Of these, there was notable content overlap among tools for identifying patients in their last year of life. There was variation in the development of tools across all domains of end-of-life care by geography and patient group. Few interactive resources integrated seamlessly with a digital interface or healthcare provider workflows. Incentives for the adoption of best-practice appeared rare.ConclusionsWe present a repeatable and scalable approach to the cataloguing and characterisation of palliative care resources. The identified resources will be of benefit not only to those in the UK but to those in other countries, developing or evaluating their own resources for aiding professionals and patients to plan and deliver excellent treatment and care at the end of life.

Project description:BackgroundAdvance Care Planning (ACP) helps people discuss personal values, goals and priorities regarding future care with family and professionals. It can support care coordination and guide decision-making as health deteriorates. However, uptake remains low internationally. Poor communication and information due to Covid-19 pressures exacerbated public and professional criticism and concerns. Recent recommendations highlight the importance of understanding and addressing public perceptions about ACP combined with person-centred approaches to ACP conversations.ObjectivesTo explore public perceptions of ACP to inform increased public engagement and empowerment.MethodsJoanna Briggs Institute methodology was applied in a rapid scoping review. Three databases (Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo) were searched for English language reviews and primary or secondary research studies from 2015 to 2021. Following title and abstract review, two researchers screened full-text articles and performed data extraction independently using Covidence. Charted data were analysed for themes and subthemes starting with two recent published reviews. Emerging findings were added and data synthesis reviewed by the research team, including public-patient representatives, to achieve consensus.ResultsOf 336 studies, 20 included reviews and research papers represented diverse public views, situations and contexts. Studies found poor public knowledge of ACP and widespread perceptions of confusing or accessible information. Multiple reports described little personal relevance, perceived risks of emotional distress, fears, mistrust and misconceptions about the purpose and scope of ACP. Studies identified public concerns stemming from reluctance to discuss death and dying despite this being just one aspect of ACP. Research with minority communities and marginalised groups found intensified concerns. Some studies cited people who valued maintaining autonomy by expressing their goals and preferences.ConclusionsStudies reviewed found many members of the public had negative or unclear perceptions of ACP. Improved knowledge and understanding appeared to influence perceptions of ACP but were not considered sufficient to change behaviours. The research provided valuable insights from members of the public that could inform current professional and societal debates about the future of ACP. Findings point to a need for novel approaches to ACP public information and involvement whilst bearing in mind societal norms, diverse cultures and contexts.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a video decision support tool on the preferences for future medical care in older people if they develop advanced dementia, and the stability of those preferences after six weeks.DesignRandomised controlled trial conducted between 1 September 2007 and 30 May 2008. Setting Four primary care clinics (two geriatric and two adult medicine) affiliated with three academic medical centres in Boston.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 200 older people (>or=65 years) living in the community with previously scheduled appointments at one of the clinics. Mean age was 75 and 58% were women.InterventionVerbal narrative alone (n=106) or with a video decision support tool (n=94).Main outcome measuresPreferred goal of care: life prolonging care (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation), limited care (admission to hospital, antibiotics, but not cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or comfort care (treatment only to relieve symptoms). Preferences after six weeks. The principal category for analysis was the difference in proportions of participants in each group who preferred comfort care.ResultsAmong participants receiving the verbal narrative alone, 68 (64%) chose comfort care, 20 (19%) chose limited care, 15 (14%) chose life prolonging care, and three (3%) were uncertain. In the video group, 81 (86%) chose comfort care, eight (9%) chose limited care, four (4%) chose life prolonging care, and one (1%) was uncertain (chi(2)=13.0, df=3, P=0.003). Among all participants the factors associated with a greater likelihood of opting for comfort care were being a college graduate or higher, good or better health status, greater health literacy, white race, and randomisation to the video arm. In multivariable analysis, participants in the video group were more likely to prefer comfort care than those in the verbal group (adjusted odds ratio 3.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 8.6). Participants were re-interviewed after six weeks. Among the 94/106 (89%) participants re-interviewed in the verbal group, 27 (29%) changed their preferences (kappa=0.35). Among the 84/94 (89%) participants re-interviewed in the video group, five (6%) changed their preferences (kappa=0.79) (P<0.001 for difference).ConclusionOlder people who view a video depiction of a patient with advanced dementia after hearing a verbal description of the condition are more likely to opt for comfort as their goal of care compared with those who solely listen to a verbal description. They also have more stable preferences over time.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00704886.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature.ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated.MethodsWe systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28-a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables.ResultsA total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources.ConclusionsA variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43.