Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36032812›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2022

Gynecologic oncology patient perspectives and knowledge on advance care planning: A quality improvement intervention.

Sarah P Huepenbecker, Sophia Lewis, Mark C Valentine, Marguerite L Palisoul, Premal H Thaker, Andrea R Hagemann, Carolyn K McCourt, Katherine C Fuh, Matthew A Powell, David G Mutch and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Early and late code status documentation in cancer patients managed by a dedicated supportive care team.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Sarah P HuepenbeckerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Sophia LewisWashington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Mark C ValentineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Marguerite L PalisoulDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Premal H ThakerDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Andrea R HagemannDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Carolyn K McCourtDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Katherine C FuhDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Matthew A PowellDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
David G MutchDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Lindsay M KurokiDivision of Gynecologic Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Assess and improve advance care planning (ACP) awareness and uptake among gynecologic oncology patients. Methods: Using a quality improvement Plan-Do-Check-Act framework, we completed a single institution needs assessment and intervention. The needs assessment was a 26-question survey assessing baseline ACP knowledge and preferences of gynecologic oncology patients. We used this survey to implement an outpatient intervention in which patients were offered ACP resources (pamphlet, discussion with their gynecologic oncologist, and/or social work referral). We conducted a post-intervention survey among patients who had and had not received ACP resource(s) to assess whether our intervention increased ACP knowledge, discussions, or uptake. Results: Among 106 patients surveyed in the needs assessment, 33 % had ACP documents, 26 % had discussed ACP with a physician, and 82 % thought discussing ACP was important. The majority preferred these conversations in the outpatient setting (52 %) with their gynecologic oncologist (80 %) instead of nurses or trainees. In the intervention, 526 patients were offered ACP resources. Compared to women who did not receive resources (n = 324), patients who received ACP resource(s) (n = 202) were more likely to have ACP discussions with their gynecologic oncologist (38 % vs 68 %, Conclusions: ACP uptake among gynecologic oncology patients is low, but ACP discussions with an oncologist during outpatient visits are important to patients and improve their knowledge regarding completing ACP documents.

Indexed as

Advanced care planningCommunicationGynecologic cancerImplementationQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID36032812
PMCPMC9399146

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.