ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2026
Measurement instruments in advance care planning: A systematic review of psychometric properties.
Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of accurate and targeted measurement instruments is critical for better understanding and supporting participation in advance care planning. However, it remains unclear which instruments are available and if they are psychometrically sound. Objective: To systematically review existing measurement instruments within the framework of advance care planning and to evaluate their psychometric properties. Design: Systematic review of measurement instruments. Methods: A literature search was conducted in five databases (CINAHL, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science), from inception to January 2025. Studies aiming to develop, validate, or adapt a measurement instrument in advance care planning were included. The psychometric properties of reported instruments were thoroughly appraised using a consistent set of criteria, and those demonstrating the most robust properties for each population were highlighted. Results: A total of 50 studies and 27 instruments were identified. Of these instruments, 14 (51.9 %) were designed for care recipients, 13 (48.1 %) for healthcare professionals, 4 (14.8 %) for caregivers, and 1 (3.7 %) for the general population. Notably, 5 instruments (18.5 %) were designed for use across multiple target populations. The instruments primarily assessed attitudes, readiness, and knowledge. Internal consistency was the most frequently examined psychometric property and generally demonstrated acceptable values. However, many studies did not assess dimensional structure, and among those that did, the results were often unsatisfactory. The Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive reference for selecting psychometrically sound instruments suited to specific populations, measurement aspects, and health contexts. It highlights key gaps in the assessment of advance care planning, including the lack of tools for caregivers and the general population, limited cross-cultural validation, and insufficient psychometric support. By identifying these shortcomings, the review lays the groundwork for future research aiming at enhancing the evaluation and implementation of advance care planning practices. Registration: Not registered.
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.