Trial reportJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2026
Practice Variability in the SHARING Choices Pragmatic Trial of Primary Care Advance Care Planning.
Trial report in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBarriers to advance care planning intervention implementation and impact on outcomes at the patient, clinician, and health system levels are well-documented. Understanding practice-level variation in implementation and outcomes could elucidate relevant contextual factors and potential strategies for improving future implementation. We therefore examined practice variation and associations between processes and outcomes in the pragmatic trial of SHARING Choices, a primary care advance care planning (ACP) and communication intervention for older adults.
methodsWe conducted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods analysis of quantitative variation among intervention practices in trial processes and outcomes, and qualitative interview analysis of ACP facilitators' perceptions of variation in implementation. We evaluated variation in key processes: (1) reach (phone contact between ACP facilitator and patient/family) and (2) uptake (facilitator-led ACP conversations) and outcomes: (1) new electronic health record (EHR)-documented advance directives (ADs) at 12 months and (2) receipt of potentially burdensome care within 6 months of death for Maryland residents with serious illness who died. We examined practice-level correlations among processes and outcomes.
resultsVariation among practices was substantial for key processes (ACP facilitator reach and uptake) and outcomes (new EHR AD documentation and potentially burdensome care at end of life; all p < 0.01). Processes of reach and uptake were significantly correlated with the outcome of new EHR AD documentation but not with potentially burdensome care at end of life. ACP facilitators perceived variation in practice engagement with the intervention related to practice relationships and teams, relative priority of ACP, and resources such as space.
conclusionsPractice variation in processes and mixed associations with outcomes highlight pragmatic trial implementation challenges and the impact and complexity of ACP. Future ACP trials should consider accounting for and evaluating practice variation in study design, implementation, and analysis.
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.