Cited by 1,726Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative and Oncologic Care

Defining Advance Care Planning for Adults: A Consensus Definition From a Multidisciplinary Delphi Panel

Open access
Sudore, Rebecca L., Lum, Hillary D., You, John J., Hanson, Laura C., Meier, Diane E., Pantilat, Steven Z., Matlock, Daniel D., Rietjens, Judith A.C. +7 more·2017·Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Abstract

Context Despite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and previous ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives.Objective The aim of this study was to develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults.Methods We convened a Delphi panel of multidisciplinary, international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. We conducted 10 rounds using a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists' input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition.Results Panelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients' values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: "Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness." The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP.Conclusions A multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.12.331

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]Medicare Program Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2016 Services DoHaH, Services CfMM Federal Register: The Daily Journal of the United States Government 2015 70885 71386 70502 26571548
  2. [12]Institute of Medicine Dying in America: Improving Quality and Honoring Individual Preferences Near the End of Life Washington, DC The National Academies Press 2015 25927121

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sudore, R. L., Lum, H. D., You, J. J., Hanson, L. C., Meier, D. E., Pantilat, S. Z., Matlock, D. D., Rietjens, J. A. C., Korfage, I. J., Ritchie, C. S., Kutner, J. S., Teno, J. M., Thomas, J., McMahan, R. D., & Heyland, D. K.
Affiliations
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
  • VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Coalition for Compassionate Care of California (US)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Sudore, Rebecca L.
Venue
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
53
Issue
5
Pages
821-832.e1
ISSN
0885-3924 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2571458453
Cited by
1,726
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 204 · 2025: 214 · 2024: 239 · 2023: 206 · 2022: 216 · 2021: 213 · 2020: 187 · 2019: 130 · 2018: 83 · 2017: 32
FWCI
110.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (R01AG045043, PCORI-1306-01500, U24NR014637)
  • VA HSR&D (11-110-2)
  • American Cancer Society (19659)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
advance care planning, consensus definition, adults, advance directives, shared decision-making, patient values, treatment preferences, serious illness, chronic disease, surrogate decision-making
MeSH terms
Interdisciplinary Research, Adult, Chronic Disease, Decision Making, Delphi Technique, Female, Humans, Male, Terminology as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Advance Care Planning, Internationality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review