Cited by 78Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

A systematic review of effectiveness of decision aids to assist older patients at the end of life

Open access
Cardona-Morrell, Magnolia, Benfatti-Olivato, Gustavo, Jansen, Jesse, Turner, Robin M., Fajardo-Pulido, Diana, Hillman, Ken·2017·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.007

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.

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?

  • 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.”
  • 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.”

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

  1. [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.
  2. [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.
  3. [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.
  4. [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.
  5. [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.
  6. [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.
  7. [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.
  8. [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
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