ReviewPloS one2020
A realist review of advance care planning for people with multiple sclerosis and their families.
Review in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving communication of prognostic uncertainty in advanced illness: a realist review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals implementing advance care planning for people suffering from life-limiting illness: a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.BMC palliative care · 2023Pooled it
- Advance care planning in multiple sclerosis (ConCure-SM): A multicenter single-arm pilot and feasibility study.PloS one · 2025Trial
- End-of-life communication in the context of MAID: a qualitative study on the perspectives and preferences of individuals living with MS.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Living with multiple sclerosis: A qualitative exploration of death, dying and suicide, in UK adults.Journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- User appraisal of a booklet for advance care planning in multiple sclerosis: a multicenter, qualitative Italian study.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators for cardiopulmonary resuscitation discussions with people with heart failure.PloS one · 2024Article
- A realist evaluation of a home-based end of life care service for children and families: what works, for whom, how, in what circumstances and why?BMC palliative care · 2022Review
- Neuro-oncology and supportive care: the role of the neurologist.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2022Review
- Advance Care Planning in Neurodegenerative Disorders: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) is reported to improve the quality of outcomes of care among those with life-limiting conditions. However, uptake is low among people living with multiple sclerosis (MS) and little is known about why or how people with MS engage in this process of decision-making.
aimsTo develop and refine an initial theory on engagement in ACP for people with MS and to identify ways to improve its uptake for those who desire it.
methodsRealist review following published protocol and reporting following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines. A multi-disciplinary team searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar in addition to other sources from inception to August 2019. Quantitative or qualitative studies, case reports, and opinion or discussion articles related to ACP and/or end of life discussions in the context of MS were included, as well as one article on physical disability and one on motor neuron disease, that contributed important contextual information. Researchers independently screened abstracts and extracted data from full-text articles. Using abductive and retroductive analysis, each article was examined for evidence to support or refute 'context, mechanism, and outcome' (CMO) hypotheses, using the Integrated Behaviour Model to guide theory development. Quality was assessed according to methodological rigour and relevance of evidence. Those studies providing rich descriptions were synthesised using a realist matrix to identify commonalities across CMO configurations.
resultsOf the 4,034 articles identified, 33 articles were included in the synthesis that supported six CMO hypotheses that identified contexts and mechanisms underpinning engagement in ACP for people with MS and included: acceptance of their situation, prior experiences, confidence, empowerment, fear (of being a burden, of death and of dying) and the desire for autonomy. Acceptance of self as a person with a life-limiting illness was imperative as it enabled people with MS to see ACP as pertinent to them. We identified the context of MS-its long, uncertain disease trajectory with periods of stability punctuated by crisis-inhibited triggering of mechanisms. Similarly, the absence of skills and confidence in advanced communication skills among health professionals prevented possibilities for ACP discussions taking place.
conclusionAlthough mechanisms are inhibited by the context of MS, health professionals can facilitate greater uptake of ACP among those people with MS who want it by developing their skills in communication, building trusting relationships, sharing accurate prognostic information and sensitively discussing death and dying.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.