Evaluating outcomes of advance care planning interventions for adults living with advanced illness and people close to them: A systematic meta-review.

Background: Advance care planning enables individuals to define goals and preferences for future medical care. Despite advances in research and the production of tools and methods for advance care planning, uncertainty remains regarding whether and which interventions support intended outcomes for patients. This lack of clarity is occurring despite high financial investment into advance care planning research through grant funding, relative to other palliative care areas.

Aim: To utilise published reviews to explore the efficacy of current advance care planning interventions, including how they are evaluated, and whether they achieve their intended outcomes for adults living with an advanced illness.

Design: Meta-review of reviews.

Data sources: Five electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline and PsychINFO) were searched for reviews published between 2015 and 2025. Quality of reviews was assessed by the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Results: Thirty-nine reviews were included. Fifteen reviews evidenced significantly decreased hospital utilisation in line with patient's preferences following advance care planning. Fourteen reviews evidenced significant increases in patients receiving care consistent with their goals, and 12 evidenced significant increases in patients documenting their preferences. Evidence on the impact of advance care planning on decisional conflict was mixed.

Conclusions: This review highlights where advance care planning interventions significantly impact outcomes defining successful advance care planning. The existence of a range of interventions can accommodate preferences of patients or families regarding how to receive and engage with their options. This heterogeneity is, however, a challenge for synthesising research data to understand the impact of interventions and inform practice.