Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38169025›Full record

ReviewJournal of general internal medicine2024

What Clinicians and Researchers Should Know About the Evolving Field of Advance Care Planning: a Narrative Review.

Ryan D McMahan, Susan E Hickman, Rebecca L Sudore

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Effects of advance care planning on hope, anxiety, attitudes, and behavioral intentions in older adults with cancer: A randomized controlled study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. PEC innovation · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Ryan D McMahanDivision of Geriatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Ryan.McMahan@UCSF.edu.
Susan E HickmanDepartment of Community & Health Systems, Indiana University School of Nursing, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Rebecca L SudoreDivision of Geriatrics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

VARC CoreP30AG044281 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI REBECCA L SUDORE · 2013 to 2026
$19.9M
Mentoring Researchers in Advance Care Planning for Underrepresented Older Adults at Risk for Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias and Their CaregiversK24AG054415 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI REBECCA L SUDORE · 2017 to 2026
$1.7M
NIA NIH HHS K24 AG054415NIA NIH HHS K24AG054415NIA NIH HHS P30 AG044281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) has been recognized as crucial by patients, families, and clinicians; however, different definitions and measurements have led to inconsistencies in practice and mixed evidence in the literature. This narrative review explores ACP's evolution, innovations, and outcomes using thematic analysis to synthesize data from randomized controlled trials, reviews, and editorials. Key findings include (1) ACP has evolved over the past several decades from a sole focus on code status and advance directive (AD) forms to a continuum of care planning over the life course focused on tailored preparation for patients and surrogate decision-makers and (2) ACP measurement has evolved from traditional outcome metrics, such as AD completion, to a comprehensive outcomes framework that includes behavior change theory, systems, implementation science, and a focus on surrogate outcomes. Since the recent development of an ACP consensus definition and outcomes framework, high-quality trials have reported mainly positive outcomes for interventions, especially for surrogates, which aligns with the patient desire to relieve decision-making burden for loved ones. Additionally, measurement of "clinically meaningful" ACP information, including documented goals of care discussions, is increasingly being integrated into electronic health records (EHR), and emerging, real-time assessments and natural language processing are enhancing ACP evaluation. To make things easier for patients, families, and care teams, clinicians and researchers can use and disseminate these evolved definitions; provide patients validated, easy-to-use tools that prime patients for conversations and decrease health disparities; use easy-to-access clinician training and simple scripts for interdisciplinary team members; and document patients' values and preferences in the medical record to capture clinically meaningful ACP so this information is available at the point of care. Future efforts should focus on efficient implementation, expanded reimbursement options, and seamless integration of EHR documentation to ensure ACP's continued evolution to better serve patients and their care partners.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningAdvance DirectivesCommunicationDocumentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansadvance care planninggeriatricsmedical decision-making

Identifiers

PMID38169025
PMCPMC10973287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.