ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Advance Care Planning in German General Practice: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study on Patients' Expectations and Experiences.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) empowers individuals to make informed decisions about future medical care. While research has focused on patients with advanced chronic or terminal conditions, there remains a notable gap in understanding the perspectives and experiences of ambulatory individuals who proactively engage in ACP.
objectiveTo explore ambulatory patients' perspectives on and experiences with facilitated ACP provided by trained professionals in German general practices, focusing on the expectations, motivations and outcomes of the ACP process.
designLongitudinal qualitative design using semi-structured telephone interviews, conducted before, immediately after and 12 months after ACP facilitation. Interviews were analysed using thematic qualitative text analysis by Kuckartz. SETTING AND
participantsInterviews were conducted with eight German patients (six females and two males; mean age: 63.6 years; frailty score from 1 to 5) in two general practice settings.
resultsParticipants valued comprehensive advance directives (ADs) and structured ACP conversations in general practice. Key motivators for seeking ACP facilitation were maintaining autonomy and reducing family burden. Trustworthy discussions with professional facilitators, structured guidance and clear communication, particularly involving healthcare proxies, were essential for a satisfying ACP process. Despite expressing a prior interest in discussing care preferences, some participants had not yet initiated these conversations.
conclusionsACP facilitation enables patients to articulate their values and healthcare preferences, supporting decision-making and reducing uncertainty. Integrating structured ACP discussions into routine primary care could enhance patient autonomy and preparedness. Future research should explore strategies to optimise ACP implementation and assess its long-term impact on patient outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Stakeholder and patient involvement is a crucial aspect of empowering research subjects and improving study feasibility and relevance. In this study, stakeholders such as experts in the field of ACP (one female GP and two male GPs), other GPs and patients were involved as an expert panel in a stepwise participatory approach. The process involved training in ACP facilitation for AS before conducting the study, expert panel meetings to identify research gaps and prioritise research topics, focus group discussions to conceptualise study design and data collection procedures, as well as the development of interview guidelines and data analysis. A patient advisory board (seven females and four males; age: 36-78 years with chronic illnesses) associated with the Institute of General Practice and Primary Care (iamag) was also involved in creating the interview guidelines (guidelines can be found in Appendix 2-4).
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register (DRKS) (ID: DRKS00027368; date of registration: April 2023; URL: https://www.drks.de/DRKS00027368).
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.