Home › Research › End-of-life care
How international experts would define advance care planning: a content analysis
Jenny T van der Steen, Emma J de Wit, Mandy Visser, Miharu Nakanishi, Lieve Van den Block, Ida J Korfage, Jürgen In der Schmitten, Rebecca L Sudore. Annals of palliative medicine, 2024-09-20
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Planning for future medical treatment, and care, referred to as advance care planning (ACP), has evolved to a focus on conversations that explore values and preferences in a broad sense. Given diverse practices internationally, we examined how international experts would define ACP themselves and whether this differs by medical profession. In an explorative study embedded in a Delphi study on ACP in dementia, experts in ACP in persons with dementia and other diseases reported at baseline how they would define ACP "in one sentence, off the top of your head". We analyzed the text of the reported definitions with content analysis, created codes to identify small definition elements, then merged them into categories. We assessed phrasing from a patient, healthcare professional, or neutral perspective. Almost half (45%) of 87 experts from 30 countries phrased ACP from a patient perspective (29% neutral, 26% professional). Codes (n=131) were merged into 19 categories. Five categories appeared in more than half of the definitions: 'Choosing between options', 'Care and treatment', 'Planning for the future', 'Individual person' and 'Having conversations'. Other categories, including 'End of life' and 'Documentation' were mentioned by a minority of experts. The categories and perspectives did not appreciably differ between physicians and other professionals. In conclusion, international experts from 30 countries typically defined ACP as person-centered conversations to choose future care and treatment, without focusing on end of life or documentation. Future research should evaluate the extent to which such conceptualization of ACP is present within clinical programs and practice recommendations and our work may serve as a starting point to monitor changes over time. Registration: World Health Organization Clinical Trial Registry Platform (NL9720).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
van der Steen, J. T., de Wit, E. J., Visser, M., Nakanishi, M., Van den Block, L., Korfage, I. J., et al. (2024). How international experts would define advance care planning: a content analysis. Annals of palliative medicine. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-24-57
Vancouver
van der Steen JT, de Wit EJ, Visser M, Nakanishi M, Van den Block L, Korfage IJ, et al. How international experts would define advance care planning: a content analysis. Annals of palliative medicine. 2024. doi:10.21037/apm-24-57. PMID: 39308165.
BibTeX
@article{vandersteen2024-39308165,
author = {van der Steen, Jenny T and de Wit, Emma J and Visser, Mandy and Nakanishi, Miharu and Van den Block, Lieve and Korfage, Ida J and der Schmitten, Jürgen In and Sudore, Rebecca L},
title = {{How international experts would define advance care planning: a content analysis}},
journal = {Annals of palliative medicine},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.21037/apm-24-57},
pmid = {39308165},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-24-57}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In conclusion, international experts from 30 countries typically defined ACP as person-centered conversations to choose future care and treatment, without focusing on end of life or documentation.
Study details
- Participants131
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 52/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Annals of palliative medicine) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 131 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 39308165) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 29 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100. |
| Total | 52 / 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 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.