Trial reportCancer2025
Factors influencing engagement with patient-directed and facilitated advance care planning interventions for patients with advanced cancer.
Trial report in Cancer, 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.
- Trial
- Understanding Advance Care Planning in oncology: Barriers, perceptions, and pathways toward patient-centered decision-making.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- Defining Advance Care Planning and Identifying Quality Indicators: A Case Study on Key Stakeholders' Perspectives in Singapore.Palliative medicine reportsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) for patients with cancer is guideline recommended. However, there are significant challenges to engagement. Patient-facing ACP programs have been developed to improve access and engagement. This study aimed to identify factors impacting engagement for patients with cancer generally, and specifically for two patient-facing approaches.
methodsAs part of a randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of facilitated versus patient-directed ACP, interviews were conducted with patients with cancer who participated in the two interventions. A thematic analysis approach was used, iteratively reviewing transcripts to identify and group concepts into themes.
resultsBetween 2020 and 2023, 60 participants in the parent study were interviewed (31 facilitated and 29 patient-directed). Several themes were identified that contributed to ACP engagement, including a realist attitude, increased skills from previous ACP, and motivational beliefs such as alleviating burden for loved ones. Features of ACP design that facilitated engagement included intellectualization and normalization of content. For facilitated ACP, patients valued the interpersonal exchange with the interventionist. For patient-directed ACP, participants appreciated the ability to step away and come back to the website. Participants discussed how ACP needs to be an iterative process as people have varying capacity or motivation to engage at different timepoints.
conclusionsMany patients with cancer are motivated to engage in ACP to decrease burden on others and receive patient-centered care. A constellation of factors interact as facilitators or barriers to engagement. Therefore, a one-time, one-size approach is not recommended; facilitating engagement may require flexible approaches offered at multiple time points.
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.