Home › Research › End-of-life care
Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review
McMahan RD, Tellez I, Sudore RL.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2020-09-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background/objectives Advance care planning (ACP) has shown benefit in some, but not all, studies. It is important to understand the utility of ACP. We conducted a scoping review to identify promising interventions and outcomes. Design Scoping review. Measurements We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for ACP randomized controlled trials from January 1, 2010, to March 3, 2020. We used standardized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses methods to chart study characteristics, including a standardized ACP Outcome Framework: Process (e.g., readiness), Action (e.g., communication), Quality of Care (e.g., satisfaction), Health Status (e.g., anxiety), and Healthcare Utilization. Differences between arms of P < .05 were deemed positive. Results Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality. There were variable definitions, age criteria (≥18 to ≥80 years), diseases (e.g., dementia and cancer), and settings (e.g., outpatient and inpatient). Interventions included facilitated discussions (42%), video only (20%), interactive, multimedia (17%), written only (12%), and clinician training (9%). For written only, 75% of primary outcomes were positive, as were 69% for multimedia programs; 67% for facilitated discussions, 59% for video only, and 57% for clinician training. Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive. For Quality of Care, 88% of outcomes were positive for patient-surrogate/clinician congruence, 100% for patients/surrogate/clinician satisfaction with communication, and 75% for surrogate satisfaction with patients' care, but not for goal concordance. For Health Status outcomes, 100% were positive for reducing surrogate/clinician distress, but not for patient quality of life. Healthcare Utilization data were mixed. Conclusion ACP is complex, and trial characteristics were heterogeneous. Outcomes for all ACP interventions were predominantly positive, as were Process and Action outcomes. Although some Quality of Care and Health Status outcomes were mixed, increased patient/surrogate satisfaction with communication and care and decreased surrogate/clinician distress were positive. Further research is needed to appropriately tailor interventions and outcomes for local contexts, set appropriate expectations of ACP outcomes, and standardize across studies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
McMahan, R. D., Tellez, I., & Sudore, R. L. (2021). Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16801
Vancouver
McMahan RD, Tellez I, Sudore RL. Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2021. doi:10.1111/jgs.16801. PMID: 32894787.
BibTeX
@article{mcmahan2021-32894787,
author = {McMahan, R. D. and Tellez, I. and Sudore, R. L.},
title = {{Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1111/jgs.16801},
pmid = {32894787},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16801}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Of 1,464 articles, 69 met eligibility; 94% were rated high quality.
- Overall, 72% of Process and 86% of Action outcomes were positive.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 32894787) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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 End-of-life care
Also tagged “delirium”
858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.