Advanced Practice Nurses' Roles and Responsibilities in Advance Care Planning for Older Persons—A Mixed Methods Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise the research literature about (a) the roles and responsibilities of advanced practice nurses (APNs) in the context of advance care planning (ACP) for older persons, (b) the characteristics of APNs' ACP practices and (c) the facilitators and barriers influencing APNs' involvement in ACP. DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review. METHODS: Followed the mixed methods systematic review guidelines outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Three researchers independently screened studies for eligibility using the Covidence Screening Application. The screening involved two stages: titles and abstracts, followed by full-text evaluation. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment. A convergent integrated synthesis combined quantitative and qualitative data by 'qualitising' quantitative findings into text, enabling integration and thematic analysis to synthesise the results. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL and Embase were searched from 2012 to 2024 for original research in English, focusing on APNs involved in ACP for individuals aged 65 or older, using qualitative, quantitative or mixed method designs. RESULTS: The review included 19 studies: seven qualitative, nine quantitative and three mixed method designs. Thematic analysis revealed that APNs play a key role in ACP, aligning care with patient preferences through discussions and documentation. Studies from the United States (12), United Kingdom (4), Canada (2) and Australia (1) show varying APN roles and responsibilities. CONCLUSION: APNs are crucial to ACP, but barriers limit their impact. Overcoming these is key to improving outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: APNs clinical expertise and close patient relationships are crucial for aligning care with patient preferences and needs in ACP. However, to fully maximise their contribution, it is essential to overcome barriers such as time constraints, lack of role recognition and insufficient training. Addressing these challenges will enhance the effectiveness of APNs in providing person-centred care. REPORTING METHOD: This review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".