alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › End-of-life care

Advance care planning in different settings for people with dementia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Kelly AJ, Luckett T, Clayton JM, Gabb L, Kochovska S, Agar M.. Palliative & supportive care, 2019-12-01

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 72 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Advance care planning (ACP) is identified as being an important process for people with dementia. However, its efficacy for improving outcomes relevant for the individual, carers and the health system has yet to be established. Aim We conducted a systematic review with the aims of testing the efficacy of ACP for people with dementia and describing the settings and population in which it has been evaluated. Methods A search was completed of electronic databases in August 2016. Articles were included if they described interventions aimed at increasing planning for future care of people with dementia, delivered to the person with dementia, their carers and/or health professionals. Results Of 4,772 articles returned by searches, 30 met the inclusion criteria, testing interventions in nursing home (n= 16) community (n = 10) and acute care (n = 4) settings. Only 18 interventions directly involved the person with dementia, with the remainder focusing on surrogate decision-makers. In all settings, interventions were found effective in increasing ACP practice. In nursing homes, ACP was found to influence care and increase the concordance between end of life wishes and care provided. Interventions in the community were found to improve patient quality of life but were not shown to influence concordance. Conclusion Future research should focus on ways to involve people with dementia in decision-making through supported means.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 72/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 42 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 72 of 100. Total 72 of 100.42 of the 58 points we could judge = 72 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 72 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Palliative & supportive care)
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
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 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 16 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation 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
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31177997)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 42 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 42 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 72 out of 100.
Total 72 / 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.

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

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.

APA 7th

Kelly, A. J., Luckett, T., Clayton, J. M., Gabb, L., Kochovska, S., & Agar, M. (2019). Advance care planning in different settings for people with dementia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Palliative & supportive care. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951519000257

Vancouver

Kelly AJ, Luckett T, Clayton JM, Gabb L, Kochovska S, Agar M. Advance care planning in different settings for people with dementia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Palliative & supportive care. 2019. doi:10.1017/s1478951519000257. PMID: 31177997.

BibTeX

@article{kelly2019-31177997,
  author  = {Kelly, A. J. and Luckett, T. and Clayton, J. M. and Gabb, L. and Kochovska, S. and Agar, M.},
  title   = {{Advance care planning in different settings for people with dementia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis}},
  journal = {Palliative \& supportive care},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1017/s1478951519000257},
  pmid    = {31177997},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1478951519000257}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Also tagged “care”

996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →