Trial reportPatient preference and adherence2025
Effectiveness of a Short-Term Advance Care Planning Intervention (VOICE) for Dialysis Patients with ESRD: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Patient preference and adherence, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on advance care planning (ACP) focus on advanced cancer, while evidence for dialysis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured educational intervention in enhancing ACP engagement among dialysis patients. Methods: The VOICE study, an RCT, was conducted at the Central Hospital of Wuhan. Initially, 117 patients were enrolled; ultimately, data from 50 participants in the intervention group and 52 in the control group were included in the final analysis. Patients in the control group received standard care, while those in the intervention group received a structured ACP intervention specifically tailored to the needs of ESRD patients. The primary outcome assessed in the study was decisional conflict, evaluated through the use of the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes included ACP engagement (ACPES), attitudes toward death (DAP-R), and quality of life (KDQOL-36™). Results: After six weeks, the intervention group showed significant but small reductions in the DCS Uncertainty subscale (P = 0.001, Cohen's d=-0.17), and improvements in the Informed (P = 0.049, Cohen's d=-0.12), Values Clarity (P = 0.003, Cohen's d=-0.11), and Effective Decision (P = 0.012, Cohen's d=-0.12) subscales. Regarding secondary outcomes, the intervention group demonstrated significantly higher scores across all ACP engagement domains (P < 0.05), reduced fear of death and death avoidance, and greater natural acceptance of death (all P < 0.05). Moreover, the intervention group reported significantly better quality of life, particularly in the Effects of Kidney Disease and Burden of Kidney Disease subscales (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The VOICE ACP intervention improved short-term ACP engagement and led to modest improvements in several domains of decisional conflict in dialysis patients. Future multicenter, longitudinal trials are warranted to evaluate the sustainability and cost-effectiveness of such interventions. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2500097890. Registered 27 February 2025.
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.