Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40053142›Full record

ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2025

[What really matters can't be planned ahead : Impediments for advance care planning from a qualitative study on very old people living alone].

Sabine Pleschberger, Paulina Wosko

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sabine PleschbergerZentrum für Public Health, Medizinische Universität Wien, Kinderspitalgasse 15/1, 1090, Wien, Österreich. sabine.pleschberger@meduniwien.ac.at.
Paulina WoskoGesundheit Österreich GmbH, Stubenring 6, 1010, Wien, Österreich.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite there is evidence for the need for advance care planning for older people living alone (OPLA), especially if they want to stay at home until the end, utilization of measures for ACP remains rather scarce. The causes for this discrepancy have not yet been researched in this target group.

objectivesAim of this study was to get insight into the perspectives of OPLA in the community on planning ahead for the end of life. MATERIALS AND

methods(Secondary) Analysis of 26 qualitative interviews. 17 were from the Austrian Survey on the very old (ÖIHS), and 9 additional interviews were conducted with a specific focus on advance care planning to enrich the data base. Verbatim transcripts were analysed by applying coding procedures.

resultsNot all people had specific concerns or a desire to deal with the end of life. In contrast to others, concerns about avoiding (unnecessary) life-prolonging measures resulted in a formal regulation, usually a living will. Staying at home or issues regarding burial and inheritance were often equally important concerns for OPLA. Numerous obstacles to formal arrangements were identified.

conclusionThe heterogeneity of OPLA with regard to their willingness and form of planning ahead for staying at home shows the limits of standardized procedures. Comprehensive approaches to advance care planning that go beyond health issues are needed to meet the concerns of OPLA in the community.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningIndependent LivingTerminal CareAgedAged, 80 and overAustriaFemaleHumansLiving WillsMaleQualitative ResearchAdvance care planningAged 80 and overEnd-of-life careQualitative secondary analysisSingle-household

Identifiers

PMID40053142
PMCPMC12568843

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.