Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38740474›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

A Mixed-Methods Comparison of Interventions to Increase Advance Care Planning.

Caroline K Tietbohl, Carly Ritger, Sarah Jordan, Prajakta Shanbhag, Rebecca L Sudore, Hillary D Lum

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  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

6 authors.

Caroline K TietbohlFrom the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (CKT); Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO (CKT, CR); Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (SJ,PS,HDL); Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (RSL). caroline.tietbohl@cuanschutz.edu.
Carly RitgerFrom the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (CKT); Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO (CKT, CR); Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (SJ,PS,HDL); Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (RSL).
Sarah JordanFrom the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (CKT); Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO (CKT, CR); Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (SJ,PS,HDL); Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (RSL).
Prajakta ShanbhagFrom the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (CKT); Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO (CKT, CR); Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (SJ,PS,HDL); Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (RSL).
Rebecca L SudoreFrom the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (CKT); Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO (CKT, CR); Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (SJ,PS,HDL); Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (RSL).
Hillary D LumFrom the Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO (CKT); Adult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO (CKT, CR); Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO (SJ,PS,HDL); Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA (RSL).

Funding

Effectiveness of Engaging in Advance Care Planning Talks (ENACT) Group Visits Intervention in Primary Care for Older Adults with and without Alzheimer's DementiaR01AG066804 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI LUM, HILLARY · 2021 to 2025
$3.7M
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
Refining an Advance Care Planning Group Visit intervention – a novel intervention to engage older adults in advance care planningK76AG054782 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI LUM, HILLARY · 2016 to 2019
$864k
NIA NIH HHS K24 AG054415NIA NIH HHS K76 AG054782NIA NIH HHS R01 AG066804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough interventions can increase advance care planning (ACP) engagement, it remains unclear which interventions to choose in primary care settings. This study compares a passive intervention (mailed materials) to an interactive intervention (group visits) on participant ACP engagement and experiences.

methodsWe used mixed methods to examine ACP engagement at baseline and six months following two ACP interventions. Eligible patients were randomized to receive mailed materials or participate in two ACP group visits. We administered the 4-item ACP Engagement survey (n = 110) and conducted interviews (n = 23). We compared mean scores and percent change in ACP engagement, analyzed interviews with directed content analysis to understand participants' ACP experiences, and integrated the findings based on mailed materials or group visits intervention.

resultsAll participants demonstrated increased ACP engagement scores. At six months, group visit participants reported higher percent change in mean overall score compared with mailed materials participants (+8% vs +3%,

conclusionsWhile primary care patients may benefit from mailed ACP materials, patients reported increased readiness after ACP group visits. Group visits emphasized the value of upstream preparation, ongoing conversations, and increased knowledge about ACP.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningPrimary Health CareAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvance Care PlanningAdvance DirectivesAgingClinical TrialCommunicationEnd of Life CareEvaluation StudiesGeriatricsMedical Decision-MakingPrimary Health CareQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID38740474
PMCPMC11262783

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.