A systematic review of effectiveness of decision aids to assist older patients at the end of life
Open accessAbstract
Objective To describe the range of decision aids (DAs) available to enable informed choice for older patients at the end of life and assess their effectiveness or acceptability.Methods Search strategy covered PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, CINAHL and PsycInfo between 1995 and 2015. The quality criteria framework endorsed by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) was used to assess usefulness.Results Seventeen DA interventions for patients, their surrogates or health professionals were included. Half the DAs were designed for self-administration and few described use of facilitators for decision-making.Treatment options and associated harms and benefits, and patient preferences were most commonly included. Patient values, treatment goals, numeric disease-specific prognostic information and financial implications of decisions were generally not covered. DAs at the end of life are generally acceptable by users, and appear to increase knowledge and reduce decisional conflict but this effectiveness is mainly based on low-level evidence.Conclusions Continuing evaluation of DAs in routine practice to support advance care planning is worth exploring further. In particular, this would be useful for conditions such as cancer, or situations such as major surgery where prognostic data is known, or in dementia where concordance on primary goals of care between surrogates and the treating team can be improved.Practice implications Given the sensitivities of end-of-life, self-administered DAs are inappropriate in this context and genuine informed decision-making cannot happen while those gaps in the instruments remain.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Available decision aids seemed to enhance patients' and surrogates' knowledge of the care options.
“Another systematic review, by Cardona-Morrell et al. [14], concluded that the available decision aids seemed to enhance patients’ and surrogates’ knowledge of the care options.”
From A systematic review of the effects of advance care planning facilitators training programs. (2019) · cites this paper as [14]
Decision aids for initiating or terminating EOL treatment were scarce and lacked prognostic information on the pros and cons of alternative treatment options and preferences.
“the systematic review by Cardona-Morrell et al. [14] implied that decision aids for initiating or terminating EOL treatment were scarce and lacked prognostic information on the pros and cons of alternative treatment options and preferences.”
From A systematic review of the effects of advance care planning facilitators training programs. (2019) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 46 · Cited by 78
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [6]6. The Choice in End of Life Care Programme Board. What's Important to me. A Review of Choice in End of Life. UK: National Health Service; 2015.
- [19]19. Brohard CL. The feasibility and efficacy of an autobiographical memory intervention on advance care planning with people with terminal cancer [Thesis]: University of Utah; 2012.
- [20]20. Hozella JB, Bascom R, Green MJ, Levi BH. Using An Interactive Computer Program To Create An Advanced Directive In Patients With Stage III-IV Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Feasibility Study [conference abstract #17316]. American Thoracic Society2011.
- [23]23. Febretti A, Lopez KD, Stifter J, Johnson A, Keenan GM, Wilkie DJ. Evaluating a Clinical Decision Support Interface for End-of-Life Nurse Care [Poster]. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Toronto, Canada: CHI '14 2014. p. 1633-8.
- [32]32. LaRue NM, Paasche-Orlow MK, Volandes AE. Video decision support tool to supplement goals-of-care discussions with hospitalized patients with advanced illness: preliminary findings [abstract #1334457]. Journal of General Internal Medicine; 2012. p. S350.
- [52]52. Armijo-Olivo S, Gazzi-Macedo L, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review. Physical Therapy. 2008;88:156-75.
- [54]54. Murray MA, Miller T, Fiset V, O'Connor A, Jacobsen MJ. Decision support: helping patients and families to find a balance at the end of life. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2004;10:270- 7.
- [55]55. O'Connor AM. Validation of a Decisional Conflict Scale. Medical Decision Making. 1995;15:25-30.
- Authors
- Cardona-Morrell, M., Benfatti-Olivato, G., Jansen, J., Turner, R. M., Fajardo-Pulido, D., & Hillman, K.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Liverpool Hospital (AU)
- Venue
- Patient Education and Counseling
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 425-435
- ISSN
- 0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2530687044
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 1.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- UNESP Institutional Repository (São Paulo State University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- National Health and Medical Research Council (1054146)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Keywords
- decision aids, end-of-life care, elderly patients, advance care planning, informed decision-making, surrogate decision-making, decisional conflict, acceptability, prognostic information, goals of care, dementia, cancer
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Patient Participation, Terminal Care, Advance Care Planning
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