Home › Research › End-of-life care
A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to and interventions for proxy decision-making by family carers of people with dementia
Lord K, Livingston G, Cooper C.. International psychogeriatrics, 2015-04-14
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Relatives of people with dementia report that proxy decision-making is difficult and distressing. We systematically reviewed the literature about barriers and facilitators to family carers of people with dementia making proxy decisions, and interventions used to facilitate their decision-making. Methods We searched electronic databases and references of included papers up to February 2014. Two authors independently evaluated study quality using a checklist. Results We included the 30/104 papers from our search which fitted predetermined criteria and prioritized higher quality papers. Family carers report that proxy decision-making is challenging and can be distressing, especially when decisions are made against the wishes of the care recipient and support from healthcare professionals is lacking. Decision-specific manualized aids have been developed, and while results for those supporting decisions about respite and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding have shown promising results in pilot trials, no intervention has yet been shown to significantly reduce decisional conflict or carer burden, or increase knowledge in randomized controlled trials; a decision aid for advance care planning increased decisional conflict. Conclusions We recommend development and testing of decision aids targeting the decisions carers report finding most distressing, including those around where people should live, accessing services, and end of life treatments. Being provided with information to make decisions which have not previously been considered may increase feelings of conflict, suggesting these aids should be carefully targeted.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lord, K., Livingston, G., & Cooper, C. (2015). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to and interventions for proxy decision-making by family carers of people with dementia. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610215000411
Vancouver
Lord K, Livingston G, Cooper C. A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to and interventions for proxy decision-making by family carers of people with dementia. International psychogeriatrics. 2015. doi:10.1017/s1041610215000411. PMID: 25870004.
BibTeX
@article{lord2015-25870004,
author = {Lord, K. and Livingston, G. and Cooper, C.},
title = {{A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to and interventions for proxy decision-making by family carers of people with dementia}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610215000411},
pmid = {25870004},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610215000411}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results We included the 30/104 papers from our search which fitted predetermined criteria and prioritized higher quality papers.
- Decision-specific manualized aids have been developed, and while results for those supporting decisions about respite and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding have shown promising results in pilot trials, no intervention has yet been shown to significantly reduce decisional conflict or carer burden, or increase knowledge in randomized controlled trials; a decision aid for advance care planning increased decisional conflict.
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25870004) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in End-of-life care
Also tagged “nursing”
995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nursing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.