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 78 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Context Care consistent with goals is the desired outcome of advance care planning (ACP). Objectives The objectives of this study were to examine concordance between advance directives and proxy care preferences among nursing home residents with advanced dementia and to determine the impact of an ACP video on concordance. Methods Data were from Educational Video to Improve Nursing home Care in End-stage dementia, a cluster randomized clinical trial conducted in 64 Boston-area facilities (32/arm) from 2013 to 2017. Participants included advanced dementia residents and their proxies (N = 328 dyads). At the baseline and quarterly (up to 12 months), proxies stated their preferred level of care for the resident (comfort, basic, or intensive) and advance directives for specific treatments (resuscitation, hospitalization, tube-feeding, intravenous hydration, antibiotics) were abstracted from the charts. At the baseline, proxies in intervention facilities viewed an ACP video. Their care preferences after viewing it were shared via a written communication with the primary care team. At each assessment, concordance between directives and proxy preferences was determined. Results Among the residents (mean age, 86.6 years; 19.5% male), the most prevalent directive was DNR (89.3%) and foregoing antibiotics was least common (parenteral, 8.2%; any type, 4.0%). Concordance between directives and each level of care preference was as follows: comfort, 7%; basic, 49%; and intensive, 58%. When comfort care was preferred, concordance was higher in intervention versus control facilities (10.8% vs. 2.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.01-6.09). Conclusion Better alignment between preferences for comfort-focused care and advance directives is needed in advanced dementia. An ACP video may help achieve that goal.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 78/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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. 45 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 78 of 100. Total 78 of 100.45 of the 58 points we could judge = 78 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of pain and symptom management)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 2 / 4 328 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 30273717)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 45 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 45 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100.
Total 78 / 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

Cohen, S. M., Volandes, A. E., Shaffer, M. L., Hanson, L. C., Habtemariam, D., & Mitchell, S. L. (2019). Concordance Between Proxy Level of Care Preference and Advance Directives Among Nursing Home Residents With Advanced Dementia: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of pain and symptom management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.09.018

Vancouver

Cohen SM, Volandes AE, Shaffer ML, Hanson LC, Habtemariam D, Mitchell SL. Concordance Between Proxy Level of Care Preference and Advance Directives Among Nursing Home Residents With Advanced Dementia: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of pain and symptom management. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.09.018. PMID: 30273717.

BibTeX

@article{cohen2019-30273717,
  author  = {Cohen, S. M. and Volandes, A. E. and Shaffer, M. L. and Hanson, L. C. and Habtemariam, D. and Mitchell, S. L.},
  title   = {{Concordance Between Proxy Level of Care Preference and Advance Directives Among Nursing Home Residents With Advanced Dementia: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial}},
  journal = {Journal of pain and symptom management},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.09.018},
  pmid    = {30273717},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.09.018}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →