Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39447030›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2024

Reimagining and rebranding advance care planning.

Chetna Malhotra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

1 author.

Chetna MalhotraDuke-NUS Medical School, Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Program in Health Services and Systems Research, 8 College Road Singapore 169857.ORCID 0000-0002-5380-0525

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advance care planning (ACP) has traditionally aimed at ensuring that patients' end-of-life (EOL) wishes are understood and respected. However, recent literature raises concerns about its effectiveness, with many trials indicating that ACP does not significantly improve goal-concordant care, enhance quality of life or reduce healthcare costs. This is because patients' future decisions are influenced by their transient preferences due to projection bias. To remain relevant, ACP requires a radical shift in perspective, implementation and branding. First, ACP's mission must be redefined with a focus on: Educate, Share and Prepare. This perspective emphasises ongoing conversations about patient health and illness, sharing of patients' current values and goals of care and preparation for the future, rather than making definitive future decisions. Second, ACP should be integrated into routine care, normalising these discussions. Simplifying ACP processes and shifting incentives to support shared responsibility among stakeholders can enhance integration. Last, rebranding ACP as 'Advance Care Preparation' can clarify its purpose, distinguishing it from EOL planning and increasing its uptake. This rebranding ensures that ACP meets the evolving needs of patients and their families, ultimately enhancing the quality of care and patient satisfaction. These changes in perspective, implementation and branding can transform ACP into a valuable tool for delivering compassionate, patient-centred healthcare, making it relevant to all individuals.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningHumansPatient PreferenceQuality of LifeTerminal Careadvance care planningcare planningcare preparationend of lifegoal concordant careolder peopleserious illness

Identifiers

PMID39447030
PMCPMC11576549

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.