Home › Research › End-of-life care
Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions
Geddis-Regan A, Errington L, Abley C, Wassall R, Exley C, Thomson R.. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2020-11-28
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Dementia can have a profound impact on decision making. People living with dementia (PLwD) often need to make decisions about health care, and, as dementia progresses, decisions may need to be made on their behalf. Specific interventions may support this process. Review question What interventions are effective in improving shared decision making or surrogate decision making on the health care of PLwD? Methods A narrative systematic review of existing literature was conducted. Seven databases, grey literature and key journals were searched. After exclusion by title, abstracts then full texts were reviewed collaboratively to manage any disagreements. Results Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Two articles, including one RCT, evaluated decision aids regarding the use of enteral feeding in advanced dementia. Six further articles, including five RCTs, were found which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions supporting patients or carers with advance care planning. Conclusion Decision-making interventions typically consist of multiple components which aim to establish preferences for future health care. Advance care planning interventions supported aspects of the decision-making processes but their impact on decision quality was rarely evaluated. Interventions did not increase the concordance of decisions with a person's values. The decision-specific interventions are unlikely to produce benefit in other decision contexts. Patient involvement Two caregivers, a public stakeholder group and a carer group were consulted in the design of the wider study to which this review relates. Six PLwD refined the research questions addressed in this paper.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Geddis-Regan, A., Errington, L., Abley, C., Wassall, R., Exley, C., & Thomson, R. (2021). Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13167
Vancouver
Geddis-Regan A, Errington L, Abley C, Wassall R, Exley C, Thomson R. Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2021. doi:10.1111/hex.13167. PMID: 33248009.
BibTeX
@article{geddisregan2021-33248009,
author = {Geddis-Regan, A. and Errington, L. and Abley, C. and Wassall, R. and Exley, C. and Thomson, R.},
title = {{Enhancing shared and surrogate decision making for people living with dementia: A systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions}},
journal = {Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1111/hex.13167},
pmid = {33248009},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13167}
}
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
- Results Eight studies met the inclusion criteria.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 33248009) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
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.