Trial reportBMC palliative care2022
"SpezPat"- common advance directives versus disease-centred advance directives: a randomised controlled pilot study on the impact on physicians' understanding of non-small cell lung cancer patients' end-of-life decisions.
Trial report in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Accommodate the Emotional Dimensions of Advance Care Planning Using Motivational Interviewing and Conditional Medical Orders.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe advance directive represents patients' health care choices and fosters patients' autonomy. Nevertheless, understanding patients' wishes based on the information provided in advance directives remains a challenge for health care providers. Based on the ethical premises of positive obligation to autonomy, an advanced directive that is disease-centred and details potential problems and complications of the disease should help health care providers correctly understand patients' wishes. To test this hypothesis, a pilot-study was conducted to investigate whether physicians could make the correct end-of-life decision for their patients when patients used a disease-centred advance directive compared to a common advance directive. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomised, controlled, prospective pilot study was designed that included patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stage VI from the Department of Haematology and Medical Oncology, University Medical Centre, Goettingen. Patients were randomised into intervention and control groups. The control group received a common advance directive, and the intervention group received a disease-centred advance directive. Both groups filled out their advance directives and returned them. Subsequently, patients were asked to complete nine medical scenarios with different treatment decisions. For each scenario the patients had to decide whether they wanted to receive treatment on a 5-point Likert scale. Four physicians were given the same scenarios and asked to decide on the treatment according to the patients' wishes as stated in their advance directives. The answers by patients and physicians were then compared to establish whether physicians had made the correct assumptions.
resultsRecruitment was stopped prior to reaching anticipated sample target. 15 patients with stage IV NSCLC completed the study, 9 patients were randomised into the control group and 6 patients in the intervention group. A total of 135 decisions were evaluated. The concordance between physicians' and patients' answers, was 0.83 (95%-CI 0.71-0.91) in the intervention group, compared to 0.60 (95%-CI 0.48-0.70) in the control group, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p = 0.005).
conclusionThis pilot study shows that disease-centred advance directives help physicians understand their NSCLC patients' wishes more precisely and make treatment choices according to these wishes.
trial registrationThe study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (no. DRKS00017580, registration date 27/08/2019).
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.