Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39045292›Full record

ArticlePalliative care and social practice2024

Tools for tomorrow: a scoping review of patient-facing tools for advance care planning.

Sean R Riley, Christiane Voisin, Erin E Stevens, Seuli Bose-Brill, Karen O Moss

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

5 authors.

Sean R RileyDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, 2050 Kenny Road, Columbus, OH 43215, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2005-030X
Christiane VoisinDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Erin E StevensDivision of Palliative Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Seuli Bose-BrillDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.
Karen O MossDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7350-3819

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals in aligning their medical care with personal values and preferences in the face of serious illness. The variety of ACP tools available reflects diverse strategies intended to facilitate these critical conversations, yet evaluations of their effectiveness often show mixed results. Following the Arskey and O'Malley framework, this scoping review aims to synthesize the range of ACP tools targeted at patients and families, highlighting their characteristics and delivery methods to better understand their impact and development over time. Studies included focused on patient-facing ACP tools across all settings and mediums. Exclusions were applied to studies solely targeting healthcare providers or those only aiming at completion of advance directives without broader ACP discussions. Searches were conducted across PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a predesigned spreadsheet, capturing study population, setting, intervention modality, and intervention theme. Tools were categorized by delivery method and further analyzed through a year-wise distribution to track trends and developments. We identified 99 unique patient-facing tools, with those focusing on counseling (31) and video technologies (21) being the most prevalent while others incorporated online platforms, print materials, games, or some combination of different delivery methods. Over half the tools were designed for specific patient groups, especially for various diseases and racial or ethnic communities. Recent years showed a surge in tool variety and innovation, including integrated patient portals and psychological techniques. The review demonstrates a broad array of innovative ACP tools that facilitate personalized and effective ACP. Our findings contribute to an enhanced understanding of their utilization and potential impacts, offering valuable insights for future tool development and policy making in ACP.

Indexed as

advance care planningadvance directivesattitudes on deathend-of-life caresurrogates

Identifiers

PMID39045292
PMCPMC11265253

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.