Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34610911›Full record

ReviewBMJ supportive & palliative care2021

Complex advance care planning interventions for chronic serious illness: how do they work: a scoping review.

Julie Stevens, Luc Deliens, Peter Pype, Aline De Vleminck, Koen Pardon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie StevensVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, End-of-life Care Research Group, Brussels, Belgium Julie.joseph.stevens@vub.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1417-0436
Luc DeliensVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, End-of-life Care Research Group, Brussels, Belgium.
Peter PypeVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, End-of-life Care Research Group, Brussels, Belgium.
Aline De VleminckVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, End-of-life Care Research Group, Brussels, Belgium.
Koen PardonVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) & Ghent University, End-of-life Care Research Group, Brussels, Belgium.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAdvance care planning (ACP) interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for patients with chronic serious illness. Yet the rationale for outcome choices and the mechanisms by which outcomes are achieved are not always clear.

objectivesTo identify and map proposed mechanisms on how complex ACP interventions can impact outcomes for patients with chronic serious illness and to explore factors that might explain intervention outcomes.

methodsThis is a scoping review of randomised controlled trials of complex ACP interventions for patients with chronic serious illness which explicitly stated the mechanism(s) by which the intervention was thought to work. We searched six databases and hand-searched key journals and reference lists.

resultsInclusion yielded 16 articles. Inclusion procedures and mapping of mechanisms and outcomes indicated that causality between components and outcomes was not always clearly described. Tailoring intervention content to patients' needs was linked to the greatest number of different outcome categories, while promoting competence and confidence to engage in ACP was most often explicitly linked to a primary outcome. Three main factors which might have affected intended outcomes were identified: participant characteristics, such as illness experience or cultural differences; the setting of implementation; or methodological limitations of the study.

conclusionFindings highlighted two main points of consideration for future ACP intervention studies: the need for clearly stated logic in how interventions are expected to impact primary outcomes and the importance of considering how an intervention may function for patients with chronic serious illnesses within a specific setting.

Identifiers

PMID34610911
PMCPMC9380502
OpenAlexW3202096902

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.