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 38 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background A substantial amount of aggressive life-prolonging treatments in the final stages of life has been reported for people with progressive life-shortening conditions. Monitoring appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care is an important public health challenge and requires validated quality indicators. Aim To develop indicators of appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care for people with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or Alzheimer's disease, measurable with population-level administrative data. Design modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Setting/participants Potential indicators were identified by literature review and expert interviews and scored in a survey among three panels of experts (one for each disease group). Indicators for which no consensus was reached were taken into group discussions. Indicators with consensus among the experts were retained for the final quality indicator sets. Results The final sets consist of 28 quality indicators for Alzheimer's disease, 26 quality indicators for cancer and 27 quality indicators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The indicator sets measure aspects of aggressiveness of care, pain and symptom treatment, specialist palliative care, place of care and place of death and coordination and continuity of care. Conclusion We developed a comprehensive set of quality indicators of appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care in people with Alzheimer's disease, cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, to be used in population-level research. Our focus on administrative healthcare databases limits us to treatment and medication, excluding other important quality aspects such as communication, which can be monitored using complementary approaches. Nevertheless, our sets will enable an efficient comparison of healthcare providers, regions and countries in terms of their performance on appropriateness of end-of-life care.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
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 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 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. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 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 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Palliative medicine)
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)
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 28429629)
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.

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

De Schreye, R., Houttekier, D., Deliens, L., & Cohen, J. (2017). Developing indicators of appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care in people with Alzheimer's disease, cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for population-level administrative databases: A RAND/UCLA appropriateness study. Palliative medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317705099

Vancouver

De Schreye R, Houttekier D, Deliens L, Cohen J. Developing indicators of appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care in people with Alzheimer's disease, cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for population-level administrative databases: A RAND/UCLA appropriateness study. Palliative medicine. 2017. doi:10.1177/0269216317705099. PMID: 28429629.

BibTeX

@article{deschreye2017-28429629,
  author  = {De Schreye, R. and Houttekier, D. and Deliens, L. and Cohen, J.},
  title   = {{Developing indicators of appropriate and inappropriate end-of-life care in people with Alzheimer's disease, cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for population-level administrative databases: A RAND/UCLA appropriateness study}},
  journal = {Palliative medicine},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1177/0269216317705099},
  pmid    = {28429629},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317705099}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also in Digital health tools

178 studies in the library are filed under Digital health tools with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Digital health tools hub.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →