The internet hosts a growing number of interactive Care Planning Tools designed to assist individuals in advance care planning (ACP). These web-based resources aim to encourage users to reflect on their values, communicate their wishes, and process information related to future care decisions. Many of these tools exist outside of traditional peer-reviewed academic literature, making it crucial to understand their characteristics and quality.
This article summarizes a systematic review conducted to investigate web-based ACP support tools. The review sought to describe the features, readability, and content quality of currently available tools. Furthermore, it examined if and how these tools have been evaluated for their effectiveness and impact.
A comprehensive search was performed across various web-based gray literature databases, search engines like Google, and app stores. Experts in the field were also consulted to identify relevant tools. The inclusion criteria focused on interactive, web-based tools designed for the general public, accessible to all, and available in English or Dutch. The quality of the content within these tools was assessed using the Quality Evaluation Scoring Tool, providing a score from 0 to 28, where higher scores indicate better quality. Data extraction tables were utilized to synthesize information regarding tool characteristics, readability, content quality, and evaluation methods.
The review identified 30 care planning tools that met the criteria. These tools included a mix of websites (50%), web-based portals (33%), apps (10%), and combined formats (7%). A significant majority (80%) of the tools stated a clear purpose. Among these, 23% aimed to promote reflection or communication, 27% focused on aiding decision-making, 23% supported the documentation of decisions, and 7% encompassed all these objectives. Information regarding the development process was less common, with only 23% of tools providing such details. Notably, all of these tools were developed with the involvement of healthcare professionals, and a smaller portion (10%) also included end-users in their development. The quality of content varied considerably, with scores ranging from 11 to 28. Lower-scoring tools were often characterized by a lack of clear references to information sources.
In conclusion, a diverse range of care planning support tools are readily accessible online, but their content quality varies significantly. Moving forward, it is essential to prioritize user involvement in the creation of ACP support tools. Moreover, the content presented within these tools should be grounded in scientific evidence to ensure they are both helpful and trustworthy resources for individuals engaging in care planning.
Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020184112; https://tinyurl.com/mruf8b43.
