Why the study?
This study aimed to integrate data on the effects of a pre-established medical care program on hospitalized older adults with chronic heart failure.
Does advance care planning improve hospice utilization and shared decision-making in hospitalized older adults with chronic heart failure?
Does advance care planning improve hospice utilization and shared decision-making in hospitalized older adults with chronic heart failure?
Advance care planning is a feasible intervention that improves knowledge, shared decision-making, and hospice utilization in older adults hospitalized with chronic heart failure.
ACP boosts hospice uptake at end of life in older CHF patients; extends evidence supporting routine integration into care pathways.
Objectives: This study aims to integrate the data on the effects of a pre-established medical care program on hospitalized older adults with chronic heart failure (CHF). Method: A comprehensive systematic review incorporating mixed research methodologies was undertaken. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Tool developed by Joanna Briggs Institute, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines for studies. Where appropriate, data were synthesized and aggregated for meta-analysis or meta-aggregation. Results: A total of 2,825 articles were found, of which 11 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that the implementation of advance care planning (ACP) can significantly increase the willingness and proportion of patients with CHF to choose and receive hospice services during their end-of-life phase. Meta-aggregation showed that the ACP intervention has a positive impact on participants, promotes their knowledge and understanding, and makes them share their decision-making with their families. Conclusion: ACP is a promising and feasible intervention that can help older adults with CHF accurately understand ACP and express their wishes timely. This study provides insights and empirical evidence to improve ACP, and valuable guidance and reference for future clinical practice. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO, identifier: CRD42024580814.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: