Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 9, 2025

A Novel Method for Involving Women of Color at High Risk for Preterm Birth in Research Priority Setting
Published on: January 12, 2018
Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping
Ryan D McMahan1,2, Ismael Tellez1,2, Rebecca L Sudore1,2
1Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
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.
More Related Videos
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Planning Nursing Care I
Standards of Care II
Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
Planning Nursing Care II
Ethical Dilemmas II
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...