ArticleBMJ open2026
Vignette-based approaches in advance care planning: a scoping review.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this scoping review is to systematically map evidence on vignette applications in advance care planning (ACP), with a focus on vignette formats, target populations and outcomes for patients and caregivers.
designScoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus and reference lists were systematically searched in December 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included original empirical studies (quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods) that evaluated the use of vignettes (written, video, virtual reality or mixed) as measurement, education, decision-support or communication tools in ACP among adults facing or potentially facing serious illness in healthcare or community settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened and appraised studies using JBI study-design-specific Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were extracted using a pre-designed, standardised chart form. Results were descriptively synthesised across the participants, vignette characteristics and outcomes.
resultsFrom 1479 records, 16 original studies were included. Vignettes have evolved from traditional text-based scenarios to video-supported and virtual reality tools, with study populations expanding from specific clinical patients to the general adult population. Primary outcomes include improved knowledge, clarified and changed medical preferences, increased ACP behaviour and improved communication. Vignettes operate through three key pathways: serve as cognitive anchors to enhance medical literacy and ACP understanding; provide low-stakes simulated scenarios that promote value-concordant preferences; and offer a depersonalised platform that facilitates communication without triggering defensive responses. While well accepted, vignettes may trigger distress, and their effectiveness depends on cultural adaptation that reconciles Western autonomous preferences with Eastern familial decision-making frameworks.
conclusionVignettes are a valuable and acceptable tool for translating abstract end-of-life values into concrete, preference-concordant decisions. Future research should prioritise standardised and culturally adapted vignette protocols and evaluate the translation of hypothetical preferences into real-world ACP behaviours through longitudinal studies.
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.