Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31537570›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Barriers, enablers and initiatives for uptake of advance care planning in general practice: a systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis.

Jo Risk, Leila Mohammadi, Joel Rhee, Lucie Walters, Paul R Ward

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Feasibility and Acceptability of Facilitated Advance Care Planning in Outpatient Clinics: A Qualitative Study of Patient and Caregivers Experiences.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2024
    Trial
  8. Complex advance care planning intervention in general practice (ACP-GP): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. 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
  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.

Jo RiskCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia risk0002@flinders.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3223-0276
Leila MohammadiLibrary, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Joel RheeGeneral Practice Academic Unit, School of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Lucie WaltersRural Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Paul R WardCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHow advance care planning (ACP) is conceptualised in Australia including when, where and how ACP is best initiated, is unclear. It has been suggested that healthcare delivered in general practice provides an optimal setting for initiation of ACP discussions but uptake remains low. This systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis sought to answer two questions: (1) What are the barriers and enablers to uptake of ACP in general practice? (2) What initiatives have been used to increase uptake of ACP in general practice?

designA systematic review and critical interpretive synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature was undertaken. A socioecological framework was used to interpret and map the literature across four contextual levels of influence including individual, interpersonal, provider and system levels within a general practice setting.

settingPrimary care general practice settings DATA SOURCES: Searches were undertaken from inception to July 2019 across Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Library of systematic reviews.

resultsThe search yielded 4883 non-duplicate studies which were reduced to 54 studies for synthesis. Year of publication ranged from 1991 to 2019 and represented research from nine countries. Review findings identified a diverse and disaggregated body of ACP literature describing barriers and enablers to ACP in general practice, and interventions testing single or multiple mechanisms to improve ACP generally without explicit consideration for level of influence. There was a lack of cohesive guidance in shaping effective ACP interventions and some early indications of structured approaches emerging.

conclusionFindings from this review present an opportunity to strategically apply the ACP research evidence across targeted levels of influence, and with an understanding of mediators and moderators to inform the design of new and enhanced ACP models of care in general practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018088838.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningGeneral PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareAustraliaDelivery of Health CareHumansQualitative Researchadvance care planningadvance directivesattitudescausal mechanismsfamily practicegeneral practiceinterventionsknowledgeliving willprimary caresocioecological perspective

Identifiers

PMID31537570
PMCPMC6756326

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.