Skip to main content

Table 1 Profile of included articles

From: Identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing advance care planning in prisons: a rapid literature review

Authors Year Country Setting Sample Size (n) Age Range Sex Approach Measures
Handtke V, Wangmo T. 2014 Switzerland 12 Swiss prisons Prisoners 35 51–71 years (mean = 61 years) 30 M, 5F Individual semi-structured interviews Prisoners were asked about end of life, death, and dying, demographic and incarceration information, general physical health information, presence of diseases, mental health status and symptoms, medications, substance use, visits to medical services, and problems with activities of daily living. Interviews were followed by a geriatric evaluation consisting of five standardised tests. Interview guide used by researchers was developed using existing literature and expert opinion and pilot-tested with two older adults from the community and further adapted after the first four interviews with older prisoners based on their feedback.
Sanders S, Stensland M, Dohrmann J, Robinson E, Juraco K. 2014 USA State medical classification center for 3 Midwestern male prisons Correctional healthcare staff 3 n.a n.a Observation study as part of an intervention program Staff-level data were identified through detailed observational (field) notes by researchers during the implementation process of the study
Prisoners who were cognitively intact, older, frail, or reasonably thought to die within the next 12 months. 20 25–79 20 M, 0F Prisoner-level data were identified during facilitated ACP discussions between trained prison staff and prisoners using a detailed data collection tool with 11 primary areas of focus: prisoner views on life support/life-sustaining procedures, end-of-life wishes, health literacy, decision-making and decision-makers, most meaningful aspects of life, questions raised by prisoners, emotions expressed, concerns related to ACP, significant issues raised, nonverbal communications between the ACP facilitator and prisoner, and non-verbal cues made by the ACP facilitator.
Sanders S, Stensland M. 2018 USA As per Sanders, Stensland, Dohrmann, Robinson, & Juraco, 2014 (above) Prisoners as per Sanders et al., 2014 (above) 20 25–79 20 M, 0F As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above) As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above)
Sanders S, Stensland M, Juraco K. 2018 USA As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above) As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above) 20 25–79 20 M, 0F As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above) As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above)
Stensland M, Sanders S. 2016 USA As per Sanders et al., 2014 (above) Prisoner composite characters 3 40–84 3 M (composites) Case study Three composite offender descriptions were developed using data collected during a larger study (see Sanders et al., 2014) to conduct a critical analysis and discussion of ethical issues related to ACP and end-of-life expereinces in prisons
Ekaireb R, Ahalt C, Sudore R, Metzger L, Williams B. 2018 USA Four prisons in 2 states and 1 large city jail in a third state. Correctional healthcare providers 24 n.a. 8 M, 16F Individual, semistructured telephone interviews Open- and closed-ended questions related to prisoner’s comfort discussing ACP, timing and process for ACP conversations, barriers encountered at patient-, provider-, and system-levels, whether the correctional setting influenced ACP conversations, and what interventions would help facilitate ACP.