Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38540631›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Situation, Education, Innovation, and Recommendation: A Large-Scale Systematic Review of Advance Care Planning in the Age of COVID-19.

Thomas Mayers, Ayaka Sakamoto, Ryota Inokuchi, Kyoko Hanari, Huijun Z Ring, Nanako Tamiya

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Thomas MayersDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-2947-2805
Ayaka SakamotoDepartment of Health Services Research, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-6922-1280
Ryota InokuchiDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-6343-2298
Kyoko HanariHealth Services Research and Development Center, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan.
Huijun Z RingDepartment of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0605-0589
Nanako TamiyaDepartment of Health Services Research, Institute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8575, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8319-2057

Funding

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan 22CA2028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for advance care planning (ACP) as a way to help mitigate the various care concerns that accompanied the healthcare crisis. However, unique obstacles to typical ACP practice necessitated the need for guidance and innovation to help facilitate these vital conversations. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the various ACP barriers and facilitators that arose during the pandemic and determine how ACP practice was affected across different contexts and among different populations. This systematic review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022359092), which adheres to the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews, examined studies on ACP in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The review involved searches of five databases, including MEDLINE and Embase. Of the 843 identified studies, 115 met the inclusion criteria. The extracted ACP barriers and facilitators were codified and quantified. The most frequently occurring ACP barrier codes were: Social distancing measures and visitation restrictions, Uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 prognosis, and Technological/Telehealth barriers. The most frequently occurring ACP facilitator codes were the following: Telehealth/virtual ACP platforms, Training for clinicians, and Care team collaboration. Identifying the ACP barriers and facilitators is essential for developing effective, resilient ACP promotion strategies and improving its delivery, accessibility, and acceptability.

Indexed as

advance care planningbarriers and facilitatorsCOVID-19 pandemicolder adultssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38540631
PMCPMC10970574

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.