Geronimo Jimenez1, Woan Shin Tan2, Amrit K Virk3, Chan Kee Low4, Josip Car5, Andy Hau Yan Ho6. 1. Centre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS), Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. Electronic address: geronimo.jimenez@ntu.edu.sg. 2. Centre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS), Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; NTU Institute of Health Technologies (HealthTech), Interdisciplinary Graduate School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; Health Services and Outcomes Research Department, National Healthcare Group, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Centre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS), Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Economics Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Centre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS), Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; Global eHealth Unit, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. Centre for Population Health Sciences (CePHaS), Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; Psychology Programme, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore; Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) involves important decision making about future medical needs. The high-volume and disparate nature of ACP research makes it difficult to grasp the evidence and derive clear policy lessons for policymakers and clinicians. AIM: The aim of this study was to synthesize ACP research evidence and identify relevant contextual elements, program features, implementation principles, and impacted outcomes to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: An overview of systematic reviews using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions was performed. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews) tool. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, Global Health, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for ACP-related research from inception of each database to April 2017. Searches were supplemented with gray literature and manual searches. Eighty systematic reviews, covering over 1660 original articles, were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Legislations, institutional policies, and cultural factors influence ACP development. Positive perceptions toward ACP do not necessarily translate into more end-of-life conversations. Many factors related to patients' and providers' attitudes, and perceptions toward life and mortality influence ACP implementation, decision making, and completion. Limited, low-quality evidence points to several ACP benefits, such as improved end-of-life communication, documentation of care preferences, dying in preferred place, and health care savings. Recurring features that make ACP programs effective include repeated and interactive discussion sessions, decision aids, and interventions targeting multiple stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence highlights several elements that influence the ACP process and provides a variety of features that could support successful, effective, and sustainable ACP implementation. However, this evidence is compartmentalized and limited. Further studies evaluating ACP as a unified program and assessing the impact of ACP for different populations, settings, and contexts are needed to develop programs that are able to unleash ACP's full potential.
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) involves important decision making about future medical needs. The high-volume and disparate nature of ACP research makes it difficult to grasp the evidence and derive clear policy lessons for policymakers and clinicians. AIM: The aim of this study was to synthesize ACP research evidence and identify relevant contextual elements, program features, implementation principles, and impacted outcomes to inform policy and practice. DESIGN: An overview of systematic reviews using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions was performed. Study quality was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews) tool. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, Global Health, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for ACP-related research from inception of each database to April 2017. Searches were supplemented with gray literature and manual searches. Eighty systematic reviews, covering over 1660 original articles, were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Legislations, institutional policies, and cultural factors influence ACP development. Positive perceptions toward ACP do not necessarily translate into more end-of-life conversations. Many factors related to patients' and providers' attitudes, and perceptions toward life and mortality influence ACP implementation, decision making, and completion. Limited, low-quality evidence points to several ACP benefits, such as improved end-of-life communication, documentation of care preferences, dying in preferred place, and health care savings. Recurring features that make ACP programs effective include repeated and interactive discussion sessions, decision aids, and interventions targeting multiple stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence highlights several elements that influence the ACP process and provides a variety of features that could support successful, effective, and sustainable ACP implementation. However, this evidence is compartmentalized and limited. Further studies evaluating ACP as a unified program and assessing the impact of ACP for different populations, settings, and contexts are needed to develop programs that are able to unleash ACP's full potential.
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Ann C Long; Robert Y Lee; Cara L McDermott; Ruth A Engelberg; J Randall Curtis Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Patience Moyo; Lacey Loomer; Joan M Teno; Roee Gutman; Ellen M McCreedy; Emmanuelle Bélanger; Angelo E Volandes; Susan L Mitchell; Vincent Mor Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Terri R Fried; Andrea L Paiva; Colleen A Redding; Lynne Iannone; John R O'Leary; Maria Zenoni; Megan M Risi; Slawomir Mejnartowicz; Joseph S Rossi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Maureen E Lyon; Leah Squires; Rachel K Scott; Debra Benator; Linda Briggs; Isabella Greenberg; Lawrence J D'Angelo; Yao Iris Cheng; Jichuan Wang Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-12
Authors: Carey Candrian; Susan Lasker Hertz; Daniel Matlock; Lierin Flanagan; Channing Tate; Jean S Kutner; Hillary D Lum Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2019-04-28 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Libby Sallnow; Richard Smith; Sam H Ahmedzai; Afsan Bhadelia; Charlotte Chamberlain; Yali Cong; Brett Doble; Luckson Dullie; Robin Durie; Eric A Finkelstein; Sam Guglani; Melanie Hodson; Bettina S Husebø; Allan Kellehear; Celia Kitzinger; Felicia Marie Knaul; Scott A Murray; Julia Neuberger; Seamus O'Mahony; M R Rajagopal; Sarah Russell; Eriko Sase; Katherine E Sleeman; Sheldon Solomon; Ros Taylor; Mpho Tutu van Furth; Katrina Wyatt Journal: Lancet Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 79.321