Background Despite increasing interest in advance care planning (ACP) and prior ACP descriptions, a consensus definition does not yet exist to guide clinical, research, and policy initiatives. Objective To develop a consensus definition of ACP for adults. Design Delphi Panel Setting/Participants Participants included a multidisciplinary panel of international ACP experts consisting of 52 clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from 4 countries, and a patient/surrogate advisory committee. Measurements We conducted 10 rounds of a modified Delphi method and qualitatively analyzed panelists’ input. Panelists identified several themes lacking consensus, and iteratively discussed and developed a final consensus definition. Results Panelists identified several tensions concerning ACP concepts such as whether the definition should focus on conversations vs. written advance directives; patients’ values vs. treatment preferences; current shared decision making vs. future medical decisions; and who should be included in the process. The panel achieved a final consensus one-sentence definition and accompanying goals statement: “Advance care planning is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences regarding future medical care. The goal of advance care planning is to help ensure that people receive medical care that is consistent with their values, goals and preferences during serious and chronic illness.” The panel also described strategies to best support adults in ACP. Conclusions A multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed a consensus definition for ACP for adults that can be used to inform implementation and measurement of ACP clinical, research, and policy initiatives.
Advance care planning (ACP) is increasingly implemented in oncology and beyond, but a definition of ACP and recommendations concerning its use are lacking. We used a formal Delphi consensus process to help develop a definition of ACP and provide recommendations for its application. Of the 109 experts (82 from Europe, 16 from North America, and 11 from Australia) who rated the ACP definitions and its 41 recommendations, agreement for each definition or recommendation was between 68-100%. ACP was defined as the ability to enable individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care, to discuss these goals and preferences with family and health-care providers, and to record and review these preferences if appropriate. Recommendations included the adaptation of ACP based on the readiness of the individual; targeting ACP content as the individual's health condition worsens; and, using trained non-physician facilitators to support the ACP process. We present a list of outcome measures to enable the pooling and comparison of results of ACP studies. We believe that our recommendations can provide guidance for clinical practice, ACP policy, and research.
Background The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) reported a 29% prostate cancer mortality reduction among screened men after 11 years. However, it is uncertain to what extent harms from overdiagnosis and treatment on quality of life counterbalance this benefit. Methods Based on ERSPC follow-up data, we used micro-simulation modeling (MISCAN) to predict the number of prostate cancers, treatments, deaths and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained following the introduction of screening. Various screening strategies, efficacies, and quality of life assumptions were modeled. Results Per 1,000 men of all ages followed for their entire lifespan we predicted for annual screening from age 55–69 years: 9 fewer deaths due to prostate cancer (28% reduction), 14 fewer men receiving palliative therapy (35% reduction), and 73 life-years gained (average 8.4 years per prostate cancer death avoided). QALYs gained were 56 (range: −21, 97), a reduction of 23% from unadjusted life-years gained. The number needed to screen (NNS) was 98 and number needed to detect (NND) 5. Also inviting men aged 70–74 resulted in more life-years (82) but similar QALYs (56). Conclusions Although NNS and NND are more favorable than previously calculated, the benefit of PSA screening is diminished by loss of QALYs, that is dependent primarily on post-diagnosis long-term effects. Longer follow-up data from both the ERSPC and quality of life are essential before making universal recommendations regarding screening.
Context Standardized outcomes that define successful advance care planning (ACP) are lacking. Objective To create an Organizing Framework of ACP outcome constructs and rate the importance of these outcomes. Methods This study convened a Delphi panel consisting of 52 multidisciplinary, international ACP experts including clinicians, researchers, and policy leaders from four countries. We conducted literature reviews and solicited attendee input from 5 international ACP conferences to identify initial ACP outcome constructs. In 5 Delphi rounds, we asked panelists to rate patient-centered outcomes on a 7-point “not-at-all” to “extremely important” scale. We calculated means and analyzed panelists’ input to finalize an Organizing Framework and outcome rankings. Results Organizing Framework outcome domains included process (e.g., attitudes), actions (e.g., discussions), quality of care (e.g., satisfaction), and healthcare (e.g., utilization). The top 5 outcomes included (1) care consistent with goals, mean 6.71 (±SD 0.04); (2) surrogate designation, 6.55 (0.45); (3) surrogate documentation, 6.50 (0.11); (4) discussions with surrogates, 6.40 (0.19); and (5) documents and recorded wishes are accessible when needed 6.27 (0.11). Advance directive documentation was ranked 10th, 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised caution about whether “care consistent with goals” 6.01 (0.21). Panelists raised can be reliably measured. Conclusion A large, multidisciplinary Delphi panel developed an Organizing Framework and rated the importance of ACP outcome constructs. Top rated outcomes should be used to evaluate the success of ACP initiatives. More research is needed to create reliable and valid measurement tools for the highest rated outcomes, particularly “care consistent with goals.”
To document anxiety and depression from pretreatment till 5-year follow-up in 299 men with localized prostate cancer. To assess, if baseline scores were predictive for anxiety and depression at 1-year follow-up. Respondents completed four assessments (pretreatment, at 6 and 12 months, and at 5-year follow-up) on anxiety, depression and mental health. Respondents were subdivided according to therapy (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) and high vs low-anxiety. Pretreatment 28% of all patients were classified as 'high-anxiety'; their average anxiety scores decreased significantly post-treatment, that is towards less anxiety. At all assessments, highanxiety men treated by prostatectomy reported less depression than high-anxiety men treated by radiotherapy. Of men treated by radiotherapy, 27% reported clinical significant levels of depression while 20% is expected in a general population. The improvement in mental health at 6-months follow-up was statistically significant and clinically meaningful in all respondent groups. Sensitivity of anxiety at baseline as a screening tool was 71% for anxiety and 60% for symptoms of depression. We recommend clinicians to attempt early detection of patients at risk of high levels of anxiety and depression after prostate cancer diagnosis since prevalence is high. STAIState can be a useful screening tool but needs further development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.