Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29956558›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2018

Advance care planning: A systematic review about experiences of patients with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness.

M Zwakman, L J Jabbarian, Jjm van Delden, A van der Heide, I J Korfage, K Pollock, Jac Rietjens, J Seymour, M C Kars

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

95 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Advance care planning for adults with heart failure.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Advance care planning engagement in patients with chronic, life-limiting illness: baseline findings from a cluster-randomised controlled trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Trial
  15. Unraveling patients' readiness in advance care planning conversations: a qualitative study as part of the ACTION Study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

35 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

9 authors.

M Zwakman1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2934-8740
L J Jabbarian2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jjm van Delden1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A van der Heide2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
I J Korfage2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
K Pollock3 School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Jac Rietjens2 Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0538-5603
J Seymour4 School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
M C Kars1 Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvance care planning is seen as an important strategy to improve end-of-life communication and the quality of life of patients and their relatives. However, the frequency of advance care planning conversations in practice remains low. In-depth understanding of patients' experiences with advance care planning might provide clues to optimise its value to patients and improve implementation.

aimTo synthesise and describe the research findings on the experiences with advance care planning of patients with a life-threatening or life-limiting illness.

designA systematic literature review, using an iterative search strategy. A thematic synthesis was conducted and was supported by NVivo 11. DATA SOURCES: The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL on 7 November 2016.

resultsOf the 3555 articles found, 20 were included. We identified three themes in patients' experiences with advance care planning. 'Ambivalence' refers to patients simultaneously experiencing benefits from advance care planning as well as unpleasant feelings. 'Readiness' for advance care planning is a necessary prerequisite for taking up its benefits but can also be promoted by the process of advance care planning itself. 'Openness' refers to patients' need to feel comfortable in being open about their preferences for future care towards relevant others.

conclusionAlthough participation in advance care planning can be accompanied by unpleasant feelings, many patients reported benefits of advance care planning as well. This suggests a need for advance care planning to be personalised in a form which is both feasible and relevant at moments suitable for the individual patient.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDecision MakingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPalliative CarePatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchTerminal CareAdvance care planningpalliative carereviewterminal care

Identifiers

PMID29956558
PMCPMC6088519

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.