Advanced search
1 file | 265.30 KB Add to list

Publicly available, interactive web-based tools to support advance care planning : systematic review

Author
Organization
Project
Abstract
Background: There is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature. Objective: This study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated. Methods: We systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28—a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables. Results: A total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources. Conclusions: A variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43
Keywords
Health Informatics, advance care planning, systemHEALTH INFORMATION-SEEKING, DECISION-MAKING, OLDER-ADULTS, INTERNET, TECHNOLOGIES, READABILITY, DEFINITION, WEBSITE, QUALITY, DESIGNatic review, web-based tools, health communication, quality of online content

Downloads

  • Publisher version.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 265.30 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Dupont, Charless, et al. “Publicly Available, Interactive Web-Based Tools to Support Advance Care Planning : Systematic Review.” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, vol. 24, no. 4, 2022, doi:10.2196/33320.
APA
Dupont, C., Smets, T., Monnet, F., Pivodic, L., De Vleminck, A., Van Audenhove, C., & Van den Block, L. (2022). Publicly available, interactive web-based tools to support advance care planning : systematic review. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 24(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/33320
Chicago author-date
Dupont, Charless, Tinne Smets, Fanny Monnet, Lara Pivodic, Aline De Vleminck, Chantal Van Audenhove, and Lieve Van den Block. 2022. “Publicly Available, Interactive Web-Based Tools to Support Advance Care Planning : Systematic Review.” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH 24 (4). https://doi.org/10.2196/33320.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Dupont, Charless, Tinne Smets, Fanny Monnet, Lara Pivodic, Aline De Vleminck, Chantal Van Audenhove, and Lieve Van den Block. 2022. “Publicly Available, Interactive Web-Based Tools to Support Advance Care Planning : Systematic Review.” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH 24 (4). doi:10.2196/33320.
Vancouver
1.
Dupont C, Smets T, Monnet F, Pivodic L, De Vleminck A, Van Audenhove C, et al. Publicly available, interactive web-based tools to support advance care planning : systematic review. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH. 2022;24(4).
IEEE
[1]
C. Dupont et al., “Publicly available, interactive web-based tools to support advance care planning : systematic review,” JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, vol. 24, no. 4, 2022.
@article{8751985,
  abstract     = {{Background: There is an increasing number of interactive web-based advance care planning (ACP) support tools, which are web-based aids in any format encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of publicly available information, most of which cannot be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

Objective: This study aims to conduct a systematic review of web-based ACP support tools to describe the characteristics, readability, and quality of content and investigate whether and how they are evaluated.

Methods: We systematically searched the web-based gray literature databases OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, British Library, Grey Literature in the Netherlands, and Health Services Research Projects in Progress, as well as Google and app stores, and consulted experts using the following eligibility criteria: web-based, designed for the general population, accessible to everyone, interactive (encouraging reflection, communication, and processing of information), and in English or Dutch. The quality of content was evaluated using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool (score 0-28—a higher score indicates better quality). To synthesize the characteristics of the ACP tools, readability and quality of content, and whether and how they were evaluated, we used 4 data extraction tables.

Results: A total of 30 tools met the eligibility criteria, including 15 (50%) websites, 10 (33%) web-based portals, 3 (10%) apps, and 2 (7%) with a combination of formats. Of the 30 tools, 24 (80%) mentioned a clear aim, including 7 (23%) that supported reflection or communication, 8 (27%) that supported people in making decisions, 7 (23%) that provided support to document decisions, and 2 (7%) that aimed to achieve all these aims. Of the 30 tools, 7 (23%) provided information on the development, all of which were developed in collaboration with health care professionals, and 3 (10%) with end users. Quality scores ranged between 11 and 28, with most of the lower-scoring tools not referring to information sources.

Conclusions: A variety of ACP support tools are available on the web, varying in the quality of content. In the future, users should be involved in the development process of ACP support tools, and the content should be substantiated by scientific evidence.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43}},
  articleno    = {{e33320}},
  author       = {{Dupont, Charless and Smets, Tinne and Monnet, Fanny and Pivodic, Lara and De Vleminck, Aline and Van Audenhove, Chantal and Van den Block, Lieve}},
  issn         = {{1438-8871}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH}},
  keywords     = {{Health Informatics,advance care planning,systemHEALTH INFORMATION-SEEKING,DECISION-MAKING,OLDER-ADULTS,INTERNET,TECHNOLOGIES,READABILITY,DEFINITION,WEBSITE,QUALITY,DESIGNatic review,web-based tools,health communication,quality of online content}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{4}},
  pages        = {{15}},
  title        = {{Publicly available, interactive web-based tools to support advance care planning : systematic review}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.2196/33320}},
  volume       = {{24}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: