Skip to main content

Table 3 Acceptability: Participants’ satisfaction with, and reactions to the course (N = 13)

From: Using co-design to develop an intervention to improve communication about the heart failure trajectory and end-of-life care

Statements

Strongly agree/agree

Lecture 1- “Why do we have to talk about the HF trajectory and end-of-life care with patients and their families?” was a worthwhile lecture

13 (100%)

Lecture 2- “Discussing the HF trajectory and end-of-life care” was a worthwhile lecture

13 (100%)

Lecture 3- “Patients’ experiences and preferences of discussing the prognosis” was a worthwhile lecture

13 (100%)

Lecture 4- “Patients with pacemaker and/or ICD- decisions on determination of treatment” was a worthwhile lecture

13 (100%)

Lecture 5- “Enabling existential communication” was a worthwhile lecture

13 (100%)

Lecture 6- “Palliative communication in HF care” was a worthwhile lecture

13 (100%)

Lecture 7- “Communication with family members” was a worthwhile lecturea

12 (92%)

Task 1 was worthwhile to do

11 (85%)

Task 2 was worthwhile to do

12 (92%)

Task 3 was worthwhile to do

11 (85%)

The group discussions during the training day was worthwhile

12 (92%)

The Question Prompt List will be a useful tool in my future communications with patients and their families

11 (85%)

The course literature have contributed to my learning

11 (85%)

The provided web -sites on the course site was worthwhile to watch

12 (92%)

It was good that the course was web-based

13 (100%)

The web-site of the course worked well

13 (100%)

  1. aOne participants could not view this lecture and therefore did not agree with the statement