Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;69(1):234-244.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.16801. Epub 2020 Sep 7.

Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review

Ryan D McMahan  1   2 , Ismael Tellez  1   2 , Rebecca L Sudore  1   2
Affiliations

Deconstructing the Complexities of Advance Care Planning Outcomes: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? A Scoping Review

Ryan D McMahan et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: advance care planning; advance directives; scoping review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: All authors report no personal or financial conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:. PubMed Articles Under MeSH “Advance Care Planning”
Data from a PubMed Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search of “Advance Care Planning” which includes the previously used subject heading “Advance Directive.” Note, MeSH indexing not complete for 2019.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
PRISMA Diagram
Figure 3:
Figure 3:. Six Pillars of Advance Care Planning*
*Pillars refer to key stakeholders or potential intervention targets
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Capron AM. Looking Back at Withdrawal of Life-Support Law and Policy to See What Lies Ahead for Medical Aid-in-Dying. Yale J Biol Med. 2019;92(4):781–791. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McMahan RD, Knight SJ, Fried TR, Sudore RL. Advance care planning beyond advance directives: perspectives from patients and surrogates. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013;46(3):355–365. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Johnson S, Butow P, Kerridge I, Tattersall M. Advance care planning for cancer patients: a systematic review of perceptions and experiences of patients, families, and healthcare providers. Psychooncology. 2016;25(4):362–386. - PubMed
    1. Fulmer T, Escobedo M, Berman A, Koren MJ, Hernandez S, Hult A. Physicians’ Views on Advance Care Planning and End-of-Life Care Conversations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(6):1201–1205. - PubMed
    1. O’Sullivan R, Mailo K, Angeles R, Agarwal G. Advance directives: survey of primary care patients. Can Fam Physician. 2015;61(4):353–356. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms