Search

Background: Advance care planning is a process through which people communicate their goals and preferences for future medical care. Due to the complexity of the decision‐making process, decision aids can assist individuals in balancing potential benefits and risks of treatment options. Objective: While decision aids have the potential to better promote advance care planning, their characteristics, content and application effectiveness are unclear and lack systematic review. Therefore, we aimed to explore these three aspects and establish a foundation for future research. Design: Scoping review. Methods: This scoping review adheres to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA‐ScR list. Six English‐language databases were systematically searched from the time of construction until 1 December 2023. Two researchers conducted the article screening and data extraction, and the extracted data was presented in written tables and narrative summaries. Results: Of the 1479 titles and abstracts, 20 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Types of decision aids were employed, mainly websites and videos. Decision aid's primary components center around 11 areas, such as furnishing information, exploring treatment and care preferences. The main manifestations were a significant increase in knowledge and improved recognition of patients' target value preferences. Among the aids, websites and videos for advance care planning have relatively high content acceptability and decision‐making process satisfaction, but their feasibility has yet to be tested. Conclusions: Decision aids were varied, with content focused on describing key information and exploring treatment and care preferences. Regarding application effects, the aids successfully facilitated the advance care planning process and improved the quality of participants' decisions. Overall, decision aids are efficient in improving the decision‐making process for implementing advance care planning in cancer and geriatric populations. In the future, personalised decision aids should be developed based on continuous optimization of tools' quality and promoted for clinical application. Reporting Method: The paper has adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines and referenced the PRISMAg‐ScR checklist. No Patient or Public Contribution: This is a review without patient and public contribution. Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF, Open Science DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims and objectives: To describe advance care planning (ACP) for patients with cancer in palliative care from professionals' perspective. Background: The number of patients with cancer is increasing. Palliative care should be based on timely ACP so that patients receive the care they prefer. Design: A scoping review. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in January 2019. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tools. Data were analysed with content analysis. Results: Of 739 studies identified, 12 were eligible for inclusion. The settings were inpatient and outpatient facilities in special and primary care including oncology, palliative and hospice care. ACP consisted of patient‐oriented issues, current and future treatment, and end‐of‐life matters. The participants were nursing, medical or social professionals. ACP conversations rarely occurred; if they did, they took place at the onset, throughout and late in the cancer. Conclusions: Professionals could not separate day‐to‐day care planning and ACP. ACP documentation was scattered and difficult to find and use. Professionals were unfamiliar with ACP, and established practices were lacking. ACP conversations mostly occurred in late cancer. Further research clarifying concepts and exploring the significance of ACP for patients and relatives is recommended. Relevance to clinical practice: Our results support the use of ACP by a multidisciplinary team from the early stages of cancer as a discussion forum around patients' wishes and choices. We showed the need to raise professionals' awareness of ACP. Education and appropriate data tools for ACP are important as they may reduce reluctance and promote ACP use. This paper contributes to the wider global clinical community by pointing out the importance of standardising ACP contents and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]