Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29512147›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2018

Influences on Care Preferences of Older People with Advanced Illness: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.

Simon N Etkind, Anna E Bone, Natasha Lovell, Irene J Higginson, Fliss E M Murtagh

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon N EtkindCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care Policy and Rehabilitation, Kings College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2863-8893
Anna E BoneCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care Policy and Rehabilitation, Kings College London, London, UK.
Natasha LovellCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care Policy and Rehabilitation, Kings College London, London, UK.
Irene J HigginsonCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care Policy and Rehabilitation, Kings College London, London, UK.
Fliss E M MurtaghCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care Policy and Rehabilitation, Kings College London, London, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine and explore the influences on care preferences of older people with advanced illness and integrate our results into a model to guide practice and research.

designSystematic review using Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases from inception to February 2017 and reference and citation list searching. Included articles investigated influences on care preference using qualitative or quantitative methodology. Thematic synthesis of qualitative articles and narrative synthesis of quantitative articles were undertaken.

settingHospital and community care settings.

participantsOlder adults with advanced illness, including people with specific illnesses and markers of advanced disease, populations identified as in the last year of life, or individuals receiving palliative care (N = 15,164). MEASUREMENTS: The QualSys criteria were used to assess study quality.

resultsOf 12,142 search results, 57 articles were included. Family and care context, illness, and individual factors interact to influence care preferences. Support from and burden on family and loved ones were prominent influences on care preferences. Mechanisms by which preferences are influenced include the process of trading-off between competing priorities, making choices based on expected outcome, level of engagement, and individual ability to form and express preferences.

conclusionFamily is particularly important as an influence on care preferences, which are influenced by complex interaction of family, individual, and illness factors. To support preferences, clinicians should consider older people with illnesses and their families together as a unit of care.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceSeverity of Illness IndexAgedChronic DiseaseFamilyHumansPalliative CareQualitative Researchpalliative carepatient preferencesystematic reviewterminal careterminally ill

Identifiers

PMID29512147
PMCPMC6001783
OpenAlexW2793370351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.