Home › Research › End-of-life care
Consensus views on advance care planning for dementia: a Delphi study
Sinclair JB, Oyebode JR, Owens RG.. Health & social care in the community, 2015-02-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The uptake of advance care planning (ACP) is particularly low among people with dementia. This may reflect barriers to communication between professionals, patients and families in the face of lack of consensus about the process. This study aimed to methodically investigate consensus views of how ACP should be explained and carried out with people with dementia. A three-round Delphi study explored views of how and when ACP should be addressed, what should be covered, who should be involved and why rates of ACP are low. Seventeen participants took part comprising family members, old age psychiatrists and policy makers. Thirty-two items reached consensus. The panel agreed on 11 different areas for discussion. They concurred that ACP was best addressed after the person has come to terms with the diagnosis when the individual feels ready to do so. There was a consensus view that the process should be couched in terms of 'certain possibilities'. Consensus items emphasised personal choice and autonomy, while also prioritising the need to discuss financial aspects and to include spouses. There was no consensus that professionals should be involved, although the panel viewed them as carrying some responsibility for low uptake. It is suggested that ACP should include general discussion of values as well as coverage of specific points. Professionals need to offer discussion and information on ACP, but also make clear that the patient has the right to choose whether to pursue ACP or not.
Key findings
- It is suggested that ACP should include general discussion of values as well as coverage of specific points.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Health & social care in the community) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — 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) |
| 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 25684278) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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
Sinclair, J. B., Oyebode, JR., & Owens, R. G. (2016). Consensus views on advance care planning for dementia: a Delphi study. Health & social care in the community. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12191
Vancouver
Sinclair JB, Oyebode JR, Owens RG. Consensus views on advance care planning for dementia: a Delphi study. Health & social care in the community. 2016. doi:10.1111/hsc.12191. PMID: 25684278.
BibTeX
@article{sinclair2016-25684278,
author = {Sinclair, J. B. and Oyebode, JR. and Owens, R. G.},
title = {{Consensus views on advance care planning for dementia: a Delphi study}},
journal = {Health \& social care in the community},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1111/hsc.12191},
pmid = {25684278},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12191}
}
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.