ArticlePloS one2025
Barriers and facilitators of advance care planning practices in multi-disciplinary, multi-facility palliative care for Japan's aging population: A qualitative analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to and readiness for advance care planning: a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence.BMC palliative care · 2025Pooled it
- 5Ms Summary: A Single-Center Retrospective Study in an Acute Geriatric Ward.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2026Article
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
Globally, multi-disciplinary advance care planning (ACP) in multi-facility settings for aging communities is essential; however, it does not consistently yield the desired outcomes. Japan's population is rapidly aging; nonetheless, no studies have examined comprehensive ACP implementation by diverse professionals across various community healthcare facilities. Within the context of an aging community, this study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to ACP implementation by multiple professionals in various healthcare facilities. A qualitative research design was employed. The study participants included 22 multidisciplinary members of a community-based palliative care (CBPC) team. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted between September and October 2019. A total of 19 barriers and 19 facilitators were identified and categorized into seven practice domains: "Understanding patients' intentions," "Family support," "Information sharing using tools," "Collaboration among multiple professions," "Cross-facility and cross-departmental cooperation," "Raising awareness in the community," and "Efforts by implementation promoters and their departments." Barriers included "Inability to understand the patient's intentions," "Physical and psychological distance between patient and family," and "Different information needs and sharing methods at each facility," among others. Facilitators included "Skills for better understanding the true meaning of patients' intentions," "Compatibility of daily tasks and ACP by utilizing tools," "Human connections between professionals in multiple facilities and departments," and "Engagement with ACP implementation," among others. The study identified important domains for practical ACP implementation using a community-based palliative care team collaborating across multiple community facilities, as well as the barriers and facilitators. The findings indicate that multi-disciplinary, multi-facility ACP implementation in regions with aging populations requires establishing a regional collaborative network system and a human network. Healthcare professionals must develop practical ACP experience to identify its benefits while enhancing their skills as "advocates."
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.