Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40394659›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Optimising digital advance care planning implementation in palliative and end-of-life care: a multi-phase mixed-methods national research programme and recommendations.

Matthew J Allsop, Jacqueline Birtwistle, Michael I Bennett, Andy Bradshaw, Paul Carder, Catherine J Evans, Robbie Foy, Ciara Heavin, Barbara Hibbert, Pablo Millares Martin and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

14 authors.

Matthew J AllsopLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. m.j.allsop@leeds.ac.uk.
Jacqueline BirtwistleLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Michael I BennettLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Andy BradshawCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK.
Paul CarderNHS West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board, Wakefield, UK.
Catherine J EvansCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK.
Robbie FoyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Ciara HeavinCork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Barbara HibbertLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Pablo Millares MartinWhitehall Surgery, Leeds, UK.
Sam D ReltonLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Suzanne H RichardsLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Maureen TwiddyInstitute of Clinical and Applied Health Research, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.
Katherine E SleemanCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

UK National Institute of Health and Care Research NIHR129171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital advance care planning (DACP) is increasingly used globally for patients with life-limiting conditions to support real-time documentation and the sharing of preferences for care. There has been low engagement with DACP systems, with patients often having information about their care preferences documented late in their illness trajectory or not at all. To optimise implementation, the Optimal Care research programme sought to understand DACP system use from multiple perspectives to guide their development and evaluation.

methodsBetween 2020 and 2023, our mixed-methods research programme sought an understanding of DACP implementation from multiple perspectives, including (i) national online survey of end-of-life care commissioning leads in England; (ii) online survey of community and hospital-based health and care professionals in two geographical regions; (iii) semi-structured interviews with a sample of survey respondents; (iv) focus groups and interviews with patients with life-limiting illness and their carers and (v) regional and national Theory of Change workshops. Findings were organised by five phases of a conceptual model of DACP generated during the programme and further categorised using the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework.

resultsA total of 788 stakeholders participated. Twenty evidence-based recommendations were distilled from data collected across the research programme to guide the implementation of DACP in routine care. Considerations are provided across the five phases of DACP implementation (system design, recognition of clinical need for DACP, documentation processes, health and care professional engagement with DACP and DACP evaluation). Recommendations prioritise a focus on end-user needs and experiences, alongside highlighting the requisite need for DACP systems to support information exchange across settings involved in the care of people with life-limiting conditions.

conclusionsAs currently designed and implemented, DACP systems may be falling short of their potential and are not working as intended for patients, carers and health and care professionals. The application of the recommendations should ensure consideration of the wider ecosystem in which DACP is being implemented, prioritising end-user experiences. Future research should prioritise developing approaches that target health and care professional DACP system engagement, alongside developing and evaluating patient and carer access to DACP systems.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningPalliative CareTerminal CareEnglandHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvance care planningCare coordinationDigital healthPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID40394659
PMCPMC12093767

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.