ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Validation of the advance care planning engagement survey in Singapore.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of Readiness to Engage in Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults With Serious Illness: Baseline Findings From the EQUAL ACP Study.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Trial
- Feasibility and acceptability of the Trans-theoretical Model-based advance care planning for community-dwelling older adults with chronic diseases in China: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in public health · 2025Trial
- Measurement instruments in advance care planning: A systematic review of psychometric properties.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingapore has an ageing population. End-of-life care and advance care planning are becoming increasingly important. To assess advance care planning engagement, valid tools are required. The primary objective of the study is to validate the 15-, 9- and 4-item versions of the ACP Engagement Survey in Singapore.
methods10 inpatients in a Singapore community hospital were purposively sampled for a cognitive debriefing interview on the ACP Engagement Survey. We recruited patients 21 years and older, who were able to understand and speak English, without a diagnosis of dementia, and who were not admitted under the palliative care service. Next, 150 inpatients and caregivers were recruited using convenience sampling across 2 Singapore community hospitals to complete the 15-item ACP Engagement Survey. We assessed content validity, internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha, construct validity with hypotheses testing and test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsThe ACPES scores were significantly higher for those who reported yes for pre-planning activities such as making a will, making a lasting power of attorney, telling one's doctor about end-of-life care preferences, and telling family or loved ones about end-of-life care preferences. Cronbach's alpha was 0.945 for the 15-item version, 0.915 for the 9-item version, and 0.912 for the 4-item version. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.933 for the 15-item version, 0.938 for the 9-item version and 0.865 for the 4-item version.
conclusionsThis study provided good psychometric support for the validity of the 15-item, 9-item and 4-item versions of the ACP Engagement Survey in Singapore.
trial registrationSingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB) approved this study (reference 2022/2025).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.