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.

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 50 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To identify barriers to informed consent in research involving subjects with advanced dementia. Design A randomized controlled clinical trial of palliative care approaches, compared with usual care, in subjects with advanced dementia who are hospitalized. Setting A large metropolitan teaching hospital. Participants All patients older than 65 years of age who have advanced dementia and a Functional Assessment Staging score of 6d to 7f and have been admitted to the hospital. Measurements Surrogates for all eligible subjects were approached for consent to enroll their family members in the trial. Reasons for refusal to enroll in the study were recorded and categorized as either informed refusal (i.e., the surrogate understood the research protocol but declined to give consent for participation) or as a barrier to informed consent (i.e., the surrogates could not participate in the informed consent process or there was no functional surrogate). Results Forty-nine percent of 146 eligible subjects could not be enrolled in the study. Only four surrogates refused consent for their family members. Of the remaining 68 patients, 41 eligible subjects' surrogates could not be engaged in the informed consent process, and 22 subjects did not have a functional surrogate to consent for research. Conclusions Absence of functional surrogate decision-makers is a major barrier to research and clinical decision-making for hospitalized patients with advanced dementia.

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

APA 7th

Baskin, S. A., Morris, J., Ahronheim, J. C., Meier, D. E., & Morrison, R. S. (1998). Barriers to obtaining consent in dementia research: implications for surrogate decision-making. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb01039.x

Vancouver

Baskin SA, Morris J, Ahronheim JC, Meier DE, Morrison RS. Barriers to obtaining consent in dementia research: implications for surrogate decision-making. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1998. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb01039.x. PMID: 9514373.

BibTeX

@article{baskin1998-9514373,
  author  = {Baskin, S. A. and Morris, J. and Ahronheim, J. C. and Meier, D. E. and Morrison, R. S.},
  title   = {{Barriers to obtaining consent in dementia research: implications for surrogate decision-making}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {1998},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb01039.x},
  pmid    = {9514373},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb01039.x}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 50/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 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. 29 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.29 of the 58 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded 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 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
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 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 1998 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 68 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 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 9514373)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 29 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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 End-of-life care

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →