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.

38/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Background For people living with dementia, the capacity to make important decisions about themselves diminishes as their condition advances. As a result, important decisions (affecting lifestyle, medical treatment and end of life) become the responsibility of someone else, as the surrogate decision-maker. This study investigated how surrogate decision-makers make important decisions on behalf of a person living with dementia. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 family members who had formally or informally taken on the role of surrogate decision-maker. Thematic analysis of interviews was undertaken, which involved identifying, analysing and reporting themes arising from the data. Results Analysis revealed three main themes associated with the process of surrogate decision-making in dementia: knowing the person's wishes; consulting with others and striking a balance. Most participants reported that there was not an advance care plan in place for the person living with dementia. Even when the prior wishes of the person with dementia were known, the process of decision-making was often fraught with complexity. Discussion Surrogate decision-making on behalf of a person living with dementia is often a difficult process. Advance care planning can play an important role in supporting this process. Healthcare professionals can recognise the challenges that surrogate decision-makers face and support them through advance care planning in a way that suits their needs and circumstances.

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

APA 7th

Fetherstonhaugh, D., McAuliffe, L., Bauer, M., & Shanley, C. (2017). Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide? Journal of medical ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103301

Vancouver

Fetherstonhaugh D, McAuliffe L, Bauer M, Shanley C. Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide? Journal of medical ethics. 2017. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103301. PMID: 27780889.

BibTeX

@article{fetherstonhaugh2017-27780889,
  author  = {Fetherstonhaugh, D. and McAuliffe, L. and Bauer, M. and Shanley, C.},
  title   = {{Decision-making on behalf of people living with dementia: how do surrogate decision-makers decide?}},
  journal = {Journal of medical ethics},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1136/medethics-2015-103301},
  pmid    = {27780889},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103301}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

As a result, important decisions (affecting lifestyle, medical treatment and end of life) become the responsibility of someone else, as the surrogate decision-maker.
Results Analysis revealed three main themes associated with the process of surrogate decision-making in dementia: knowing the person's wishes; consulting with others and striking a balance.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 38/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of medical ethics)
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	2 / 5	2017 — within 10 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27780889)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	22 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total	38 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in End-of-life care from nearby years

Also tagged “nursing”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nursing”; 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 →