Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29550975›Full record

ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2018

The Voice Is As Mighty As the Pen: Integrating Conversations into Advance Care Planning.

Kunal Bailoor, Leslie H Kamil, Ed Goldman, Laura M Napiewocki, Denise Winiarski, Christian J Vercler, Andrew G Shuman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Timing of Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Kunal BailoorUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Leslie H KamilUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Ed GoldmanUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Laura M NapiewockiUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Denise WiniarskiUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Christian J VerclerUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Andrew G ShumanUniversity of Michigan Medical School, 1904 Taubman Center, 1500 E Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. shumana@med.umich.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advance care planning allows patients to articulate preferences for their medical treatment, lifestyle, and surrogate decision-makers in order to anticipate and mitigate their potential loss of decision-making capacity. Written advance directives are often emphasized in this regard. While these directives contain important information, there are several barriers to consider: veracity and accuracy of surrogate decision-makers in making choices consistent with the substituted judgement standard, state-to-state variability in regulations, literacy issues, lack of access to legal resources, lack of understanding of medical options, and cultural disparities. Given these issues, it is vital to increase the use of patient and healthcare provider conversations as an advance care planning tool and to increase integration of such discourse into advance care planning policy as adjuncts and complements to written advance directives. This paper reviews current legislation about written advance directives and dissects how documentation of spoken interactions might be integrated and considered. We discuss specific institutional policy changes required to facilitate implementation. Finally, we explore the ethical issues surrounding the increased usage and recognition of clinician-patient conversations in advance care planning.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingDocumentationLegislation, MedicalPatient PreferenceAdvance Care PlanningAdvance DirectivesBioethical IssuesHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsAdvance care planningAdvance directiveSubstituted judgementSurrogate decision-making

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.