Provider Tools for Advance Care Planning and Goals of Care Discussions: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning and goals of care discussions involve the exploration of what is most important to a person, including their values and beliefs in preparation for health-care decision-making. Advance care planning conversations focus on planning for future health care, ensuring that an incapable person's wishes are known and can guide the person's substitute decision maker for future decision-making. Goals of care discussions focus on preparing for current decision-making by ensuring the person's goals guide this process. AIM: To provide evidence regarding tools and/or practices available for use by health-care providers to effectively facilitate advance care planning conversations and/or goals of care discussions. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted focusing on guidelines, randomized trials, comparative studies, and noncomparative studies. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the proceedings of the International Advance Care Planning Conference and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Palliative Care Symposium. CONCLUSIONS: Although several studies report positive findings, there is a lack of consistent patient outcome evidence to support any one clinical tool for use in advance care planning or goals of care discussions. Effective advance care planning conversations at both the population and the individual level require provider education and communication skill development, standardized and accessible documentation, quality improvement initiatives, and system-wide coordination to impact the population level. There is a need for research focused on goals of care discussions, to clarify the purpose and expected outcomes of these discussions, and to clearly differentiate goals of care from advance care planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".