Trial reportJournal of primary care & community health
Caregiving Burden and Wellbeing From the Meta-LARC Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care for Patients With Serious Illness.
Trial report in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCare partners (CPs) are informal or family caregivers who help family or friends manage health care and provide a wide range of assistance. Advance care planning (ACP) supports CPs by clarifying patients' goals and values.
methodsThe Meta-LARC Advance Care Planning trial randomized primary care practices to team-based or individual clinician-focused versions of an ACP program to determine if team-based approaches would increase ACP and improve patient outcomes. CPs were included, but not required, in ACP conversations and follow-up; CP outcomes were secondary and exploratory. CPs completed initial, 6-, and 12-month questionnaires, including the Zarit Burden Interview-12, PROMIS-29, and assessed if care matched patient preferences.
results171 CPs participated and completed initial and 6- or 12-month follow-up questionnaires. The PROMIS-29 scale scores were different only for the depression scale at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups: the mean score for CPs in the individual clinician-focused arm was better than the team-based CPs (50.3 vs 49.2,
conclusionsWe found no significant differences in most CP outcomes when serious illness conversations with patients in primary care are implemented using a team-based versus individual clinician-focused approach. However, when care matched what was important to patients, CP outcomes were better.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.