Advance Care Planning, End-of-Life Preferences, and Burdensome Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Primary care is a key setting for advance care planning (ACP). Objective: To test the effects of a multicomponent primary care-based ACP intervention (SHARING Choices) on documented end-of-life preferences and potentially burdensome care at end of life. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial in primary care practices from 2 health systems was conducted between March 2021 and April 2022. Adults 65 years and older with a scheduled in-person or telehealth visit with clinicians from participating practices were eligible for inclusion. Interventions: The treatment protocol encompassed an introductory letter from the clinic, access to a designated facilitator trained in ACP, a person-family agenda-setting checklist, shared access to the patient portal, a mailed advance directive, and print education. The control protocol encompassed usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes included (1) new electronic health record-documented end-of-life preferences (advance directive or medical orders for life-sustaining treatment) at 12 months among those without documentation at baseline and (2) receipt of potentially burdensome care within 6 months of death among a subsample of Maryland residents with serious illness who died within 18 months of study entry from health information exchange data. Results: There were 19 practices in the intervention arm and 32 practices in the control arm. The study included 22 949 patients in the intervention group (13 575 women [59.2%]; mean [SD] age, 73.9 [7.2] years; 1674 [7.3%] with diagnosed dementia) and 41 966 in the control group (25 057 women [59.7%]; mean [SD] age, 74.0 [7.1] years; 3223 [7.9%] with diagnosed dementia). A total of 17 907 patients (27.6%) were Black, 1373 (2.1%) were Hispanic, 40 345 (62.2%) were White, and 5290 (8.2%) were another race (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and missing race). Grant-funded facilitators initiated 17 931 outreach attempts by phone (13 963 [77.9%]) and through the patient portal (3968 [22.1%]) to patients from intervention practices, and 1181 engaged in facilitator-led ACP conversations. New end-of-life preferences were documented for 2190 of 18 314 patients in the intervention arm (12.0%) and 2130 of 32 321 in the control arm (6.6%). This treatment effect was significant for the overall cohort (adjusted odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 2.02-2.30) and present but attenuated for Black patients, those 75 years and older, and those diagnosed dementia. Among 1498 Maryland resident decedents, potentially burdensome care was higher in the intervention group (150 of 521 [28.8%] vs 204 of 977 [20.9%]; adjusted odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.81). Conclusions and Relevance: In this pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial, the SHARING Choices intervention increased new documentation of end-of-life preferences but also increased potentially burdensome care at end of life. Mixed findings underscore the importance of comprehensive support for those with serious illness and prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes in ACP interventional research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04819191.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".