Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36028176›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain and symptom management2023

Advance Care Planning in Serious Illness: A Narrative Review.

William E Rosa, Shigeko Izumi, Donald R Sullivan, Joshua Lakin, Abby R Rosenberg, Claire J Creutzfeldt, Debbie Lafond, Jennifer Tjia, Valerie Cotter, Cara Wallace and 6 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain and symptom management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Adolescents and young adults with cancer conversations following participation in an advance care planning video pilot.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

William E RosaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (W.E.R.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: rosaw@mskcc.org.
Shigeko IzumiSchool of Nursing (S.I.), Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Donald R SullivanDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (D.R.S.), School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Joshua LakinDepartment of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care (J.L., R.B.), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abby R RosenbergDivision of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Pediatrics (A.R.R.), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Palliative Care and Resilience Lab (A.R.R.), Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Claire J CreutzfeldtDepartment of Neurology (C.J.C.), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Debbie LafondPediatric and Neonatal Needs Advanced (PANDA) Education Consultants (D.L.).
Jennifer TjiaChan Medical School, University of Massachusetts (J.T.), Worcester, Massachusetts.
Valerie CotterSchool of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University (V.C.), Baltimore, Maryland; School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University (V.C.), Baltimore, Maryland.
Cara WallaceCollege for Public Health and Social Justice (C.W.), Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Danetta E SloanDepartment of Health (D.E.S.), Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Dulce Maria Cruz-OliverGeriatric Medicine and Gerontology (D.M.C.O.), Beacham Center for Geriatric Medicine, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Susan DeSanto-MadeyaConnell School of Nursing (S.D.M.), Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rachelle BernackiDepartment of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care (J.L., R.B.), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Thomas W LeblancDepartment of Medicine (T.W.L.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Andrew S EpsteinDepartment of Medicine (A.S.E.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Navigating Patients and Families through the Neuro-ICUK23NS099421 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CREUTZFELDT, CLAIRE JOHANNA · 2017 to 2021
$951k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS099421
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextAdvance care planning (ACP) intends to support person-centered medical decision-making by eliciting patient preferences. Research has not identified significant associations between ACP and goal-concordant end-of-life care, leading to justified scientific debate regarding ACP utility.

objectiveTo delineate ACP's potential benefits and missed opportunities and identify an evidence-informed, clinically relevant path ahead for ACP in serious illness.

methodsWe conducted a narrative review merging the best available ACP empirical data, grey literature, and emergent scholarly discourse using a snowball search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar (2000-2022). Findings were informed by our team's interprofessional clinical and research expertise in serious illness care.

resultsEarly ACP practices were largely tied to mandated document completion, potentially failing to capture the holistic preferences of patients and surrogates. ACP models focused on serious illness communication rather than documentation show promising patient and clinician results. Ideally, ACP would lead to goal-concordant care even amid the unpredictability of serious illness trajectories. But ACP might also provide a false sense of security that patients' wishes will be honored and revisited at end-of-life. An iterative, 'building block' framework to integrate ACP throughout serious illness is provided alongside clinical practice, research, and policy recommendations.

conclusionsWe advocate a balanced approach to ACP, recognizing empirical deficits while acknowledging potential benefits and ethical imperatives (e.g., fostering clinician-patient trust and shared decision-making). We support prioritizing patient/surrogate-centered outcomes with more robust measures to account for interpersonal clinician-patient variables that likely inform ACP efficacy and may better evaluate information gleaned during serious illness encounters.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningTerminal CareClinical Decision-MakingCommunicationHumansPatient PreferenceAdvance care planningadvance directivescommunicationend-of-lifegoal-concordant carepalliative carepatient-centered careserious illness

Identifiers

PMID36028176
PMCPMC9884468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.