SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2022
Publicly Available, Interactive Web-Based Tools to Support Advance Care Planning: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Using nudges with electronic health records systems to improve advance care planning: a systematic review.BMC palliative care · 2025Pooled it
- Promoting Family/Friend Involvement in Care Planning in Care Homes: A Qualitative Exploration of the Usefulness and Relevance of an Information Resource.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Cocreation of a Digital Tool for Proactive End-of-Life Communication: Protocol for a Participatory Action Research Project.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- From inferring preferences to enabling choice: potentials of digital tools to improve substitute decision-making.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Documentation of Life-Sustaining Treatment Preferences in a National Cohort of Veteran Decedents.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-based approaches for advance care planning: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Timely integration of palliative care into oncology in hospitals in the Netherlands: a feasibility study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of digital tools in promoting advance care planning: a systematic review protocol.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of interactive web-based tools to stimulate reflection and communication about advance care planning with people with dementia and their family caregivers.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- A Personalized and Interactive Web-Based Advance Care Planning Intervention for Older Adults (Koda Health): Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Summary of evidence to facilitate the implementation of advance care planning among advanced cancer patients.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2024Article
- Systems for electronic documentation and sharing of advance care planning preferences: a scoping review.Progress in palliative care · 2024Article
- Tools for tomorrow: a scoping review of patient-facing tools for advance care planning.Palliative care and social practice · 2024Article
- Defining the content of a website on advance care planning in dementia: a focus group study with family and health professionals.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Advance Care Planning Website for People With Dementia and Their Family Caregivers: Protocol for a Development and Usability Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Advanced directives' knowledge among Portuguese palliative patients and caregivers: do the sociodemographic factors influence it? A cross-sectional survey.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Japanese Local Governments' Dissemination Activities for Advance Care Planning: A Descriptive Analysis of a Nationwide Survey during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature.
objectiveThis study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated.
methodsWe systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28-a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables.
resultsA total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources.
conclusionsA variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43.
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.