More research is also needed. Conclusions There is currently

very limited research evidence regarding the effectiveness of different interventions to encourage people who are currently well to consider and discuss their end of life preferences with the people closest to them. Available evidence suggests that passive Cabozantinib lectures or presentations are unlikely to be as effective as participatory approaches. It has also highlighted the importance of finding an appropriate context for interventions and of sensitivity to those who may not wish to engage in discussion about end of life issues at the time. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical It may be difficult to assess the effectiveness of many interventions, which have subtle and long-term aims; this review has illustrated the importance of medium and long term follow-up. However we would encourage all those involved in the increasing

number of public health approaches to palliative care projects internationally to evaluate Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical their work to allow the body of evidence on this increasingly important area to be collated and used to inform wider discussion and further developments. Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Appendix 1 Quality Assessment Criteria 1. Abstract and title: Did they provide a clear description of the study? Good: Structured abstract with full information and clear title. Fair: Abstract with most of the information. Poor: Inadequate abstract. Very Poor: No abstract. 2. Introduction and aims: Was there a good background and clear statement of the aims Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of the research? Good: Full but concise background to discussion/study containing up-to date literature review and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Clear statement of aim AND objectives including research questions. Fair : Some background and literature review. Research questions

outlined. Poor: Some background but no aim/objectives/questions, OR Aims/objectives Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical but inadequate background. Very Poor: No mention of aims/objectives. No background or literature review. 3. Method and data: Is the method appropriate and clearly explained? Good: Method is appropriate and described clearly (e.g., questionnaires included). Clear details of the data collection and recording. Fair: Method appropriate, Non-specific serine/threonine protein kinase description could be better. Data described. Poor: Questionable whether method is appropriate. Method described inadequately. Little description of data. Very Poor: No mention of method, AND/OR Method inappropriate, AND/OR No details of data. 4. Sampling: Was the sampling strategy appropriate to address the aims? Good: Details (age/gender/race/context) of who was studied and how they were recruited. Why this group was targeted. The sample size was justified for the study. Response rates shown and explained. Fair: Sample size justified. Most information given, but some missing. Poor: Sampling mentioned but few descriptive details. Very Poor: No details of sample. 5.