IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v41y2021i3p292-304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of Advance Care Planning Videos for Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Cancer, Heart, and Kidney Failure Outpatient Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Maureen L. Douglas

    (Department of Oncology, Division of Palliative Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
    Covenant Health Palliative Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

  • Jessica Simon

    (Department of Oncology, Division of Palliative Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
    Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, AB, Canada)

  • Sara N. Davison

    (Division of Nephrology & Immunology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, CAN)

  • Patricia Biondo

    (Department of Oncology, Division of Palliative Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada)

  • Sunita Ghosh

    (Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

  • Aliya Kassam

    (Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, AB, Canada)

  • Konrad Fassbender

    (Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Covenant Health Palliative Institute, Edmonton, AB, Canada)

Abstract

Background Patient videos about advance care planning (ACP; hereafter “Videos†), were developed to support uptake of provincial policy and address the complexity of patients’ decision-making process. We evaluate self-administered ACP Videos, compare the studies’ choice of outcomes, show correlations between the patients’ ACP actions, and discuss implications for health care policy. Objective To test the efficacy of the Videos on patients’ ACP/goals of care designation conversations with a health care provider. Design, Setting, and Participants Using a 2-arm, 1:1 randomized controlled trial, we recruited outpatients with a diagnosis of kidney failure, heart failure, metastatic lung, gastrointestinal, or gynecological cancer from 22 sites. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions Videos describing the ACP process and illustrating the resuscitative, medical, and comfort levels of care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who reported having an ACP/goals of care designation (GCD) conversation with a health care provider by 3 mo. Outcomes were measured using the Behaviours in Advance Care Planning and Actions Survey, an online survey capturing ACP attitudes, processes, and actions. Results We analyzed 241 and 217 participants at baseline and 3 mo, respectively. The proportion of participants who had an ACP/GCD conversation with a health care provider by 3 mo was significantly different between study arms (46% intervention; 32% control; adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; P = 0.032). Adjusted for the quality of conversations, there was no significant difference. Conclusions Videos as stand-alone tools do not engage individuals in high-quality ACP. Pragmatic trials are necessary to evaluate their impact on downstream outcomes when integrated into intentional, comprehensive conversations with a health care provider. Considering the strong correlation between 2 activities (physicians discussing options, patients telling health care providers preferences), policy should focus on empowering patients to initiate these conversations.

Suggested Citation

  • Maureen L. Douglas & Jessica Simon & Sara N. Davison & Patricia Biondo & Sunita Ghosh & Aliya Kassam & Konrad Fassbender, 2021. "Efficacy of Advance Care Planning Videos for Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Cancer, Heart, and Kidney Failure Outpatient Settings," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(3), pages 292-304, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:292-304
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20985836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20985836
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20985836?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
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:41:y:2021:i:3:p:292-304. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.