This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

32/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 32 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Appendix B. Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. A hierarchical coding framework showing how categories and subcategories related to readiness for advance care planning were organized during qualitative data analysis across all participant groups.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Van Der Nulft, V., Brinkman‐Stoppelenburg, A., Mahieu, L. A. I., Hoffstädt, H. E., van der Steen, J. T., van Vliet, L. M., et al. (2026). Additional file 2 of Factors influencing readiness for advance care planning in dementia: a qualitative interview study. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31724908

Vancouver

Van Der Nulft V, Brinkman‐Stoppelenburg A, Mahieu LAI, Hoffstädt HE, van der Steen JT, van Vliet LM, et al. Additional file 2 of Factors influencing readiness for advance care planning in dementia: a qualitative interview study. Figshare. 2026. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.31724908.

BibTeX

@article{vandernulft2026-c12c4beb,
  author  = {Van Der Nulft, Vera and Brinkman‐Stoppelenburg, Arianne and Mahieu, Liselotte A. I. and Hoffstädt, Hinke E. and van der Steen, Jenny Theodora and van Vliet, Liesbeth Mirjam and van der Linden, Yvette M.},
  title   = {{Additional file 2 of Factors influencing readiness for advance care planning in dementia: a qualitative interview study}},
  journal = {Figshare},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.6084/m9.figshare.31724908},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31724908}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Coding tree of main categories and specific sub categories describing factors influencing readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals.
A hierarchical coding framework showing how categories and subcategories related to readiness for advance care planning were organized during qualitative data analysis across all participant groups.

Why it matters

This appendix presents a coding tree of categories and subcategories describing factors that influence readiness for advance care planning among people with dementia, family caregivers, and healthcare professionals. It contains no testing of any treatment, so it offers no information on treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 32/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record and senior author's track record, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 92 points we could judge it on, which is 32 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Figshare)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 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	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	0 / 7	Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year	0 / 6	Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	— / 4	OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Yvette M. van der Linden holds only 3 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score
Institution's track record	1 / 3	King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	29 / 92	Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 92 points we could judge it on is 32 out of 100.
Total	32 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in End-of-life care from nearby years

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.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →