IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0150671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communication Tools for End-of-Life Decision-Making in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Simon J Oczkowski
  • Han-Oh Chung
  • Louise Hanvey
  • Lawrence Mbuagbaw
  • John J You

Abstract

Background: Patients with serious illness, and their families, state that better communication and decision-making with healthcare providers is a high priority to improve the quality of end-of-life care. Numerous communication tools to assist patients, family members, and clinicians in end-of-life decision-making have been published, but their effectiveness remains unclear. Objectives: To determine, amongst adults in ambulatory care settings, the effect of structured communication tools for end-of-life decision-making on completion of advance care planning. Methods: We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized intervention studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials from database inception until July 2014. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence for each of the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: Sixty-seven studies, including 46 RCTs, were found. The majority evaluated communication tools in older patients (age >50) with no specific medical condition, but many specifically evaluated populations with cancer, lung, heart, neurologic, or renal disease. Most studies compared the use of communication tools against usual care, but several compared the tools to less-intensive advance care planning tools. The use of structured communication tools increased: the frequency of advance care planning discussions/discussions about advance directives (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.25–4.26, p = 0.007, low quality evidence) and the completion of advance directives (ADs) (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.43–2.59, p

Suggested Citation

  • Simon J Oczkowski & Han-Oh Chung & Louise Hanvey & Lawrence Mbuagbaw & John J You, 2016. "Communication Tools for End-of-Life Decision-Making in Ambulatory Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150671
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150671
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0150671&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0150671?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angelo E. Volandes & Michael J. Barry & Yuchiao Chang & Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, 2010. "Improving Decision Making at the End of Life With Video Images," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(1), pages 29-34, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marie-Anne Durand & Lewis Carpenter & Hayley Dolan & Paulina Bravo & Mala Mann & Frances Bunn & Glyn Elwyn, 2014. "Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0150671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.