Cited by 53Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Factors influencing the engagement of cancer patients with advance care planning: A scoping review

Open access
Spelten, Evelien R., Geerse, Olaf, Vuuren, Julia, Timmis, Jennifer, Blanch, Bev, Duijts, Saskia, MacDermott, Sean·2019·European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly regarded as the best way to optimise end-of-life (EOL) care. Studies have examined a multitude of factors impacting on the lagging uptake of ACP. In the current study, we specifically focused on patient factors related to the uptake of ACP in adult cancer patients. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted, for which we searched the CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases (January 2013-December 2018). Studies exploring patient-related factors influencing the uptake of ACP in cancer patients were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Eleven papers and two overarching themes: person-related (e.g. socio-demographic) factors and "comprehension and awareness," were identified. White, well-educated patients with a support network were more likely to be involved in ACP. However, there is limited comprehension and awareness among cancer patients regarding ACP. CONCLUSIONS: The identified themes warrant a tailored approach to ACP. With regard to person-related factors, the existing body of knowledge on health literacy, disparities and shared decision-making should be used when designing strategies to improve ACP uptake. Further, our findings regarding "comprehension and awareness" suggest that ACP should not be limited to a narrow process without acknowledging the complexity surrounding personalised cancer care near the EOL.

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 · 10.1111/ecc.13091

Cites

46 of 46 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: 1

  1. Veritas Health Innovation (2018). Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation. Retrieved from www.covid ence.org

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spelten, E. R., Geerse, O., Vuuren, J., Timmis, J., Blanch, B., Duijts, S., & MacDermott, S.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Monash University (AU)
Corresponding author
Spelten, Evelien R.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Care
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
e13091-e13091
ISSN
  • 0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2354
OpenAlex
W2944095806
Cited by
53
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer Care (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
advance care planning, cancer patients, end-of-life care, patient engagement, sociodemographic factors, health literacy, shared decision-making, disparity, social support networks
MeSH terms
Ethnicity, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Neoplasms, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Socioeconomic Factors, Terminal Care, Cost of Illness, Marital Status, 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