Home › Research › End-of-life care
Advance care planning for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Benjamin H Levi, Zachary Simmons, Courtney Hanna, Allyson Brothers, Erik Lehman, Elana Farace, Megan Bain, Renee Stewart et al.. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration, 2017-03-05
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
The mean concordance between patient wishes and the clinical team decisions was significantly higher post-intervention (post = 91.9%, 95% CI = 87.8, 96.1, vs. pre = 52.4%, 95% CI = 41.9, 62.9; p <0.001). Clinical team members reported greater confidence that their decisions accurately represented each patient's wishes post-intervention (mean = 6.5) compared to pre-intervention (mean = 3.3, 1 = low, 10 = high, p <0.001). Patients reported high satisfaction (mean = 26.4, SD = 3.2; 6 = low, 30 = high) and low decisional conflict (mean = 28.8, SD = 8.2; 20 = low, 80 = high) with decisions about end-of-life care, and high satisfaction with the decision-aid (mean = 52.7, SD = 5.7, 20 = low, 60 = high). Patient knowledge regarding ACP increased post-intervention (pre = 47.8% correct responses vs. post = 66.3%; p <0.001) without adversely affecting patient anxiety or self-determination. A computer based ACP decision-aid can significantly improve clinicians' understanding of ALS patients' wishes with regard to end-of-life medical care.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Levi, B. H., Simmons, Z., Hanna, C., Brothers, A., Lehman, E., Farace, E., et al. (2017). Advance care planning for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2017.1285317
Vancouver
Levi BH, Simmons Z, Hanna C, Brothers A, Lehman E, Farace E, et al. Advance care planning for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration. 2017. doi:10.1080/21678421.2017.1285317. PMID: 28631959.
BibTeX
@article{levi2017-28631959,
author = {Levi, Benjamin H and Simmons, Zachary and Hanna, Courtney and Brothers, Allyson and Lehman, Erik and Farace, Elana and Bain, Megan and Stewart, Renee and others},
title = {{Advance care planning for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis}},
journal = {Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis \& frontotemporal degeneration},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1080/21678421.2017.1285317},
pmid = {28631959},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2017.1285317}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The mean concordance between patient wishes and the clinical team decisions was significantly higher post-intervention (post = 91.9%, 95% CI = 87.8, 96.1, vs. pre = 52.4%, 95% CI = 41.9, 62.9; p <0.001).
- Clinical team members reported greater confidence that their decisions accurately represented each patient's wishes post-intervention (mean = 6.5) compared to pre-intervention (mean = 3.3, 1 = low, 10 = high, p <0.001).
- Patients reported high satisfaction (mean = 26.4, SD = 3.2; 6 = low, 30 = high) and low decisional conflict (mean = 28.8, SD = 8.2; 20 = low, 80 = high) with decisions about end-of-life care, and high satisfaction with the decision-aid (mean = 52.7, SD = 5.7, 20 = low, 60 = high).
- Patient knowledge regarding ACP increased post-intervention (pre = 47.8% correct responses vs. post = 66.3%; p <0.001) without adversely affecting patient anxiety or self-determination.
- A computer based ACP decision-aid can significantly improve clinicians' understanding of ALS patients' wishes with regard to end-of-life medical care.
Study details
- Participants18
- Effect size91.9%; 52.4%; 47.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 18 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28631959) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also in End-of-life care
116 studies in the library are filed under End-of-life care with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The End-of-life care hub.