Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39907962›Full record

ArticleResearch in health services & regions2025

The instrumental value of advance directives: lesson learned from the COVID-19 pandemic for policymaking.

Elisabeth Stock, Christian H Nickel, Bernice S Elger, Andrea Martani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research in health services & regions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Elisabeth StockInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. elisabeth.stock@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2620-5744
Christian H NickelEmergency Center, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6619-9284
Bernice S ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4249-7399
Andrea MartaniInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2113-1002

Funding

Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open conversations between patients and healthcare professionals (HCP) are required to evaluate which treatments are reasonable for the individual case, especially towards the end of life. Advance Care Planning (ACP), which often results in drafting an Advance Directive (AD), is a useful tool to help with decisions in these circumstances, but the rate of AD completion remains low. During the COVID-19 pandemic, ACP and AD gained popularity due to the alleged advantage that they could facilitate resource allocation, to the benefit of public health. In this article, which presents a theoretical reflection grounded in scientific evidence, we underline an even stronger ethical argument to support the implementation of AD in end-of-life care (eol-C) i.e. the instrumental value at the individual level. We show, with particular reference to lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, that AD are instrumentally valuable in that they: (1) allow to thematise death; (2) ensure that overtreatment is avoided; (3) enable to better respect the wish of people to die at their preferred place; (4) help revive the "lost skill" of prognostication. We thus conclude that these arguments speak for promoting the territorially uniform implementation and accessibility of high-quality AD in care.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningAdvance DirectivesCOVID-19 pandemicInstrumental valueResource allocation

Identifiers

PMID39907962
PMCPMC11799459

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.