Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33001268›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

Unraveling patients' readiness in advance care planning conversations: a qualitative study as part of the ACTION Study.

M Zwakman, M M Milota, A van der Heide, L J Jabbarian, I J Korfage, J A C Rietjens, J J M van Delden, M C Kars

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors.

M ZwakmanJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2934-8740
M M MilotaJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2144-4175
A van der HeideDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5584-4305
L J JabbarianDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6418-162X
I J KorfageDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6538-9115
J A C RietjensDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0538-5603
J J M van DeldenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5530-7275
M C KarsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, the Netherlands. m.c.kars@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5680-4559

Funding

Seventh Framework Programme 602541
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatients' readiness for advance care planning (ACP) is often considered a prerequisite for starting ACP conversations. Healthcare professionals' uncertainty about patients' readiness hampers the uptake of ACP in clinical practice. This study aims To determine how patients' readiness is expressed and develops throughout an ACP conversation.

methodsA qualitative sub-study into the ACTION ACP conversations collected as part of the international Phase III multicenter cluster-randomized clinical trial. A purposeful sample was taken of ACP conversations of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer who participated in the ACTION study between May 2015 and December 2018 (n = 15). A content analysis of the ACP conversations was conducted.

resultsAll patients (n = 15) expressed both signs of not being ready and of being ready. Signs of being ready included anticipating possible future scenarios or demonstrating an understanding of one's disease. Signs of not being ready included limiting one's perspective to the here and now or indicating a preference not to talk about an ACP topic. Signs of not being ready occurred more often when future-oriented topics were discussed. Despite showing signs of not being ready, patients were able to continue the conversation when a new topic was introduced.

conclusionHealthcare professionals should be aware that patients do not have to be ready for all ACP topics to be able to participate in an ACP conversation. They should be sensitive to signs of not being ready and develop the ability to adapt the conversation accordingly.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningAgedCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchAdvance care planningAdvance directivesHealth communicationMedical oncologyPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID33001268
PMCPMC8062377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.