Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22985010›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2012

After you: conversations between patients and healthcare professionals in planning for end of life care.

Kathryn Almack, Karen Cox, Nima Moghaddam, Kristian Pollock, Jane Seymour

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03332979 (Experiencing Loss and Planning Ahead Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 66 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03332979 completednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Experiencing Loss and Planning Ahead Study (ELPAS): Caring for a Relative or Friend With Dementia

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2018 to 2020Enrolled150ConditionsGrief
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 169 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Evaluation of a Novel Hospice-Specific Patient Decision Aid.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2024
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. End-of-life planning with frail patients attending general practice: an exploratory prospective cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Hope in Pediatric Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn AlmackSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Physiotherapy, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre campus, B Floor, South Block Link, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK. kathryn.almack@nottingham.ac.uk.
Karen Cox
Nima Moghaddam
Kristian Pollock
Jane Seymour
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Lincoln · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelled

backgroundThis study explores with patients, carers and health care professionals if, when and how Advance Care Planning conversations about patients' preferences for place of care (and death) were facilitated and documented.

methodsThe study adopted an exploratory case study design using qualitative interviews, across five services delivering palliative care to cancer and non-cancer patients within an urban and rural English region. The study recruited 18 cases made up of patients (N = 18; 10 men; 8 women; median age 75); nominated relatives (N = 11; 7 women; 4 men; median age 65) and healthcare professionals (N = 15) caring for the patient. Data collection included: 18 initial interviews (nine separate interviews with patients and 9 joint interviews with patients and relatives) and follow up interviews in 6 cases (involving a total of 5 patients and 5 relatives) within one year of the first interview. Five group interviews were conducted with 15 healthcare professionals; 8 of whom also participated in follow up interviews to review their involvement with patients in our study.

resultsPatients demonstrated varying degrees of reticence, evasion or reluctance to initiate any conversations about end of life care preferences. Most assumed that staff would initiate such conversations, while staff were often hesitant to do so. Staff-identified barriers included the perceived risks of taking away hope and issues of timing. Staff were often guided by cues from the patient or by intuition about when to initiate these discussions.

conclusionsThis study provides insights into the complexities surrounding the initiation of Advance Care Planning involving conversations about end of life care preferences with patients who are identified as having palliative care needs, in particular in relation to the risks inherent in the process of having conversations where mortality must be acknowledged. Future research is needed to examine how to develop interventions to help initiate conversations to develop person centred plans to manage the end of life.

Identifiers

PMID22985010
PMCPMC3517317
OpenAlexW2019676632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.