Evaluating Advance Care Planning in Patients with a Glioma: A Systematic Review of Patient, Clinical, and Health Care Outcomes

Clicks: 9
ID: 332546
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #61 of 65 articles by views in Neuro-Oncology Practice

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Advance care planning (ACP) aims to align future care with people’s preferences and values. Timely ACP is crucial in patients with a glioma due to the progressive neurological decline, which affects health-related quality of life and decision-making capacity. Robust methods to evaluate ACP in patients with a glioma are lacking, and documentation alone has been shown to be an inadequate measure of successful ACP. This systematic review identifies and categorizes the outcomes reported in studies evaluating ACP in patients with a glioma. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in six databases to identify articles published between January 1990 through May 2025. Data were extracted on study characteristics and reported outcomes. Outcomes were categorized into six domains: patient-reported outcomes, patient-reported experiences, structure, process, health care utilization, and clinical outcomes. Results Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting a total of 102 outcomes (median 5 [range 1-11]). Most outcomes reflected what was done in providing care and included advance directive documentation (process outcomes). No studies reported outcomes reflecting the organization of care (structure outcomes). Outcomes were obtained through questionnaires (n = 60/102, 59%), medical records (n = 39/102, 38%), or interviews (n = 2/102, 2%). Ten studies together reported 25 unique validated questionnaires, of which only three were used in multiple studies. Conclusions Studies evaluating ACP in patients with a glioma are highly heterogeneous and predominantly report process outcomes rather than outcomes aligned with the goals of ACP. Future research should prioritize person-centered outcomes to better capture the impact of ACP.
Reference Key
openalex_W7222546582 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Robin M. Pieterman, Esmée K. J. van der Poort, Monique C.M. Baas-Thijssen, Caroline Hertler, Heather E. Leeper, Akanksha Sharma, Rebecca L. Sudore, Tobias Walbert, Yvette M. van der Linden, Johan A F Koekkoek
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Neuro-Oncology Practice
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/nop/npag100
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npag100
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.