alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › End-of-life care

Improving shared decision-making in advance care planning: Implementation of a cluster randomized staff intervention in dementia care

Goossens B, Sevenants A, Declercq A, Van Audenhove C.. Patient education and counseling, 2019-11-26

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 71 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective Increasing staff engagement level of shared decision-making in advance care planning for persons with dementia in nursing homes. Perceived importance, competence and frequency of staff members applying shared decision-making were measured. Additionally, facilitators and barriers in the implementation process were described. Methods In this pretest-posttest cluster randomized trial, 311 staff members from 65 Belgian nursing home wards participated. Key components of the intervention were knowledge on shared decision-making, role-play exercises and internal policies on advance care planning. Audio recordings of advance care planning conversations between residents, families and staff were compared before and after the intervention. Participants filled in questionnaires and provided feedback. Results Wards demonstrated a higher level of shared decision-making after the intervention (p < 0.001) while time spent on the conversations did not increase. This effect persisted at 6 months follow-up (p < 0.001). Participants perceived shared decision-making as more important (p = 0.031) and felt more competent (p = 0.010), though frequency of use did not change (p = 0.201). High staff turnover and difficult co-operation with GP's were barriers. Conclusion Nursing home staff benefits from this training in shared decision-making. Practice implications Learning shared decision-making in advance care planning for persons with dementia is possible and sustainable in the time-constricted context of nursing homes.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 71/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 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 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 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. 41 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 71 of 100. Total 71 of 100.41 of the 58 points we could judge = 71 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Patient education and counseling)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
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 2 / 5 2020 — 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 31818522)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
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.

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

Goossens, B., Sevenants, A., Declercq, A., & Van Audenhove, C. (2020). Improving shared decision-making in advance care planning: Implementation of a cluster randomized staff intervention in dementia care. Patient education and counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.024

Vancouver

Goossens B, Sevenants A, Declercq A, Van Audenhove C. Improving shared decision-making in advance care planning: Implementation of a cluster randomized staff intervention in dementia care. Patient education and counseling. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.024. PMID: 31818522.

BibTeX

@article{goossens2020-31818522,
  author  = {Goossens, B. and Sevenants, A. and Declercq, A. and Van Audenhove, C.},
  title   = {{Improving shared decision-making in advance care planning: Implementation of a cluster randomized staff intervention in dementia care}},
  journal = {Patient education and counseling},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.024},
  pmid    = {31818522},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.11.024}
}

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.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →