ArticleBMJ open2026
Patient and public perspectives on the availability of their health and advance care planning information to support care at the end of life: a mixed-methods questionnaire study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
objectiveTo explore patient and public views and experiences of health professional access to patient health records and advance care planning information to support care at the end of life.
designA cross-sectional national online survey of patients and the public using a convergent-parallel approach.
settingThe survey was distributed across the UK by Compassion in Dying and promoted via newsletters and social media channels of the Professional Records Standards Body and NHS England's digital workstream network. These partners were purposively selected for their active involvement in end-of-life care, including hospices, clinicians and related charities.
participantsA total of 1728 participants from 103 UK counties responded, including people with a terminal condition (n=33), with long-term condition (n=442), who provide or have provided care to a person with a long-term or terminal illness (n=229) and who identified as healthy and interested in planning for the future (n=1024). MEASURES: Both quantitative data (multiple-choice responses and numerical ratings) and qualitative data (open-ended comments) asking about experiences and views of access to their health and advance care planning information to support their care at the end of life.
resultsConfidence that recorded care preferences would be accessed when needed was low for carers (median=2, IQR 1-4) and moderate for patients (median=3, IQR 1-4). Four themes derived from free-text responses included (1) experience of sharing health information; (2) preparation, communication and understanding; (3) concerns, unknowns and assurance seeking; and (4) preserving dignity and respect: understanding individual contexts.
conclusionsRespondents acknowledged the opportunity for digital systems to enable access to health and advance care planning information but expressed doubts that professionals would retrieve it when needed, citing past failures. Confidence in record accuracy could be strengthened by patient and carer access. Future research should examine whether such access improves alignment of care with patients' wishes.
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.