Barriers to advance care planning with patients as perceived by nurses and other healthcare professionals: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Advance care planning is a means for patients to communicate their wishes, fears and desires for future health decisions should they lose the ability to consider or communicate these. Despite being supported by governments and healthcare leaders, uptake amongst the general population remains low. Nurses play a crucial role in promoting and engaging with these discussions given their close relationship with patients and families in a range of clinical settings. AIM: To describe the barriers that nurses and healthcare professionals believe prevent them from exploring advance care planning with their patients. METHOD: We carried out a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles from the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and ProQuest Central, guided by the PRISMA checklist. RESULTS: Eleven articles were identified: all were self-reporting surveys using a mix of open and closed questions. They originated in the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland. The participants included various healthcare professionals, with the majority of studies focussing on nurses. The two most important barriers to advance care planning are lack of education and insufficient time. Advance care planning appears to be well supported, and nurses and healthcare professionals report themselves to be comfortable and confident to take on the responsibility. CONCLUSION: There is a need for greater education and training for nurses and healthcare professionals. In particular, there needs to be better understanding of professional and legal responsibilities. The need for sufficient time to be made available to allow these conversations, in often busy settings, will need institutional and financial support. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Increased training and knowledge are likely to lead to more positive attitudes and greater confidence for nurses, and other healthcare professionals, which should help support and encourage patient engagement with 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it