ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
Shared care plan: an extraordinary tool for the personalization of medicine and respect for self-determination.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Shared Document as a Tool for Shared Care Planning: A Retrospective Analysis of 160 Cases.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Challenges of care coordination for complex patients among family medicine residents in a community ambulatory clinic: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Italian law n. 219/2017 on consent and advance directives: survey among Ethics Committees on their involvement and possible role.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Health in Prison: Does Penitentiary Medicine in Italy Still Exist?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
- Medication Errors in Pediatrics: Proposals to Improve the Quality and Safety of Care Through Clinical Risk Management.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- The Motion of the Italian National Bioethics Committee on Aggressive Treatment towards Children with Limited Life Expectancy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn 22 December 2017, Law No. 219 was approved in Italy. This law provides citizens with effective tools with which to express healthcare decisions: namely, advance treatment directives (ATD) and shared care plans (SCP).
methodsThis article presents an analysis of 70 SCP cases carried out in a tertiary hospital in Italy during the period between 01.02.2018 and 29.02.2020 inclusive.
resultsIn 90% of cases, the objective of the plan pertained to situations regarding patients' refusal of transfusions of blood components, the majority (97%) due to their belonging to the religious movement of Jehovah's Witnesses. 46% of the sample had drafted ATDs. The course of treatment recommended by the attending physicians was confirmed in 93% of the SCP cases. Trustees were appointed in 96% of cases. In 55% of cases, patients assigned trustees with attestative functions and the remaining 45% with creative functions. The results demonstrate that each patient personally dictates his or her wishes and the role assigned to the trustee. SCP meetings serve as a useful tool for providing the patient and his or her relatives with information, and for appointing a trustee. However, it has never been necessary to solicit the intervention of the trustee following a surgical operation.
conclusionsThe SCP has proven to be an essential tool in achieving the objective of personalised medicine. However, there is still notable passivity in its application. Further effort is required in order for it to become a common asset in clinical practice.
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.