Effect of Living Wills on End‐of‐Life Care: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively assess the effect of a living will on end-of-life care. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. PARTICIPANTS: All interventional and observational studies were included, excepting those with fictive cases. Included studies were conducted in adults with and without living wills, excluding individuals with specific psychiatric living wills. MEASUREMENTS: Two authors independently extracted study and participant characteristics and outcomes related to end-of-life care (place of death, hospitalization and intensive care unit management, life-sustaining treatments, restricted care). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. RESULTS: From 7,596 records identified, 28 observational studies were included, 19 conducted in the United States, 7 in Europe, and 1 each in Canada and Australia. Place of death was assessed in 14 studies, life-sustaining treatments in 13, decision for restricted care in 12, and hospitalization in 8. Risk of bias was serious for 26 studies and moderate for 2. Twenty-one studies reported significantly less medical management for individuals with a living will, 3 reported more medical management, and the difference was not significant in 37. CONCLUSION: Methodological quality of included studies was insufficient to offer reliable results. The effect of living wills appears limited in view of the importance and direction of potential biases. Further studies including larger populations, considering main confounding factors, and documenting the real presence of a living will in medical records are necessary to reach stronger conclusions on the effect of living wills on end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:164-171, 2019.
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 | 0.020 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".