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 44 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Abstract Various approaches to advance care planning are in use and generally acceptable also for persons with dementia and their care partners. Two contrasting approaches involve a highly scripted, predominantly medical approach to decide on specific treatments in advance versus a more flexible psychosocial, coping-based approach that comprises global care goal setting. We aim to assess for whom and when either approach is preferred from the perspective of general practitioners. General practitioners in the Netherlands participated in the CONT-END randomized controlled trial and we interviewed six practitioners trained in the medical approach and four in the psychosocial approach. We explained the other approach during the interview. Twelve other general practitioners were interviewed after viewing video vignettes of the two approaches shown in random order. With inductive qualitative content analyses, we identified four attributes distinguishing situations in which either approach is preferred: understanding, trust, readiness and momentum. For the medical approach, understanding, trust, and readiness on the part of person and care partner were prerequisites for the right momentum. This may be achieved in a follow-up conversation, but such conversations may also be triggered by urgent medical reasons. In contrast, the psychosocial approach would help understand the person, foster trust and create readiness also in a first conversation early in the course of the disease. Without a clear trigger, momentum would need to be created. We will visualize the contrasting attributes and discuss implications for practice of advance care planning with persons with dementia and their care partners in primary care settings.

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

APA 7th

van der Steen, J. T., Xu, J., Tros, W., & Blom, J. W. (2025). Contrasting Approaches in Advance Care Planning in Dementia as Perceived by General Practitioners. Innovation in Aging. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf122.2219

Vancouver

van der Steen JT, Xu J, Tros W, Blom JW. Contrasting Approaches in Advance Care Planning in Dementia as Perceived by General Practitioners. Innovation in Aging. 2025. doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf122.2219.

BibTeX

@article{vandersteen2025-644d01cf,
  author  = {van der Steen, Jenny Theodora and Xu, Jingyuan and Tros, Willemijn and Blom, Jeanet W.},
  title   = {{Contrasting Approaches in Advance Care Planning in Dementia as Perceived by General Practitioners}},
  journal = {Innovation in Aging},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1093/geroni/igaf122.2219},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaf122.2219}
}

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

Why it matters

This qualitative study interviewed general practitioners about when a scripted medical approach versus a flexible psychosocial approach to advance care planning is preferred for people with dementia. It is about care planning approaches, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 44/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 4 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited 0 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 0 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. Total 44 of 100.44 of 100 points earned56 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Innovation in Aging)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Innovation in Aging: journal h-index 48 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised 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 4 / 5 2025 — within 3 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 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited 0 / 7 Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
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 2 / 4 Last-listed author Jeanet W. Blom: h-index 33 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 Leiden University Medical Center: institution h-index 930 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Total 44 / 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

Also tagged “care”

995 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 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 →