Literature DB >> 28355526

Community knowledge of law at the end of life: availability and accessibility of web-based resources.

Ben White1, Lindy Willmott1, Cheryl Tilse2, Jill Wilson2, Deborah Lawson3, Angela Pearce4, Jeffrey Dunn5, Joanne F Aitken5, Rachel Feeney1, Stephanie Jowett1.   

Abstract

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify online resources community members may access to inform themselves about their legal duties and rights in end-of-life decision making. Methods Resource mapping identified online resources that members of the public in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are likely to identify, and assessed the ease or difficulty in locating them. Resources were then critically analysed for accessibility of language and format using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results Identified resources differed considerably based on whether search terms identified by community members or experts were used. Most resources focused on advance directives, enduring powers of attorney and substitute decision making. Relatively few provided information about legal duties (e.g. powers and responsibilities of substitute decision makers) or resolving conflict with health practitioners. Accessibility (understandability and actionability) of resource content varied. Conclusions Although numerous resources on end-of-life law are available online, community members may not be able to identify relevant resources or find resource content accessible. What is known about the topic? Research on participation by patients in decision making about their treatment has focused primarily on medical rather than legal knowledge. What does this paper add? The present study investigated which online resources community members may access to inform themselves about the law on end-of-life decision making. The resources identified were analysed for ease of location and content accessibility. What are the implications for practitioners? Authors of online resources on end-of-life decision making should consider whether their resources can be: (1) identified by search terms used by the public; (2) understood by a general audience; and (3) readily used to promote reader action.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28355526     DOI: 10.1071/AH16234

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust Health Rev        ISSN: 0156-5788            Impact factor:   1.990


  2 in total

1.  Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).

Authors:  Julia Vishnevetsky; Chasity Burrows Walters; Kay See Tan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2017-09-06

2.  Are older and seriously ill inpatients planning ahead for future medical care?

Authors:  Amy Waller; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Balakrishnan R Kichu Nair; Tiffany Evans
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 3.921

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.