Definition and recommended cultural considerations for advance care planning in Japan: A systematic review
Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing, ISSN: 2349-6673, Vol: 8, Issue: 6, Page: 628-638
2021
- 17Citations
- 57Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Although Delphi studies in Western countries have provided a consensus for practices pertaining to advance care planning (ACP), their findings may not be applicable to Asian countries with distinct, family-oriented cultures. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the definitions of and evidence for ACP and analyze recommended practices in Japan. We conducted a systematic review using narrative synthesis in December 2018. Key words were searched from Ichushi-Web by NPO Japan Medical Abstracts Society, Citation Information by the National Institute of Informatics, and Japanese Institutional Repositories Online databases. In addition, in August 2019, we conducted hand searching using Google Scholar and Google. We included original Japanese articles that addressed factors regarding ACP (e.g. definitions, elements, roles and tasks, and timing of ACP). Data were synthesized using thematic analysis. The study protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO: CRD42020152391). Of the 3512 studies screened, 27 were included: 22 quantitative and 5 qualitative. Five-position statements/guidelines were added by hand searching. Definitions and several distinct practice patterns of ACP and the importance of families' roles were identified. Unique recommendations addressed the importance of properly eliciting patients' preferences that are the best for both patients and families, engaging the public to raise awareness of ACP, and developing policies and guidelines for ACP. We identified the definition of and unique recommendations for ACP based on Japanese cultural values and norms. Further research is needed to evaluate the recommendations provided in this systematic review.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know