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 › Health systems and care delivery

Interprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care

C Khemai, D L L Leão, D J A Janssen, J M G A Schols, J M M Meijers. Journal of interprofessional care, 2024-05-17

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 43 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is essential for high-quality palliative care (PC) for persons with dementia. The aim of this scoping review was to identify IPC approaches in palliative dementia care and explore the elements constituting these approaches. We performed a search in PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO using the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' manual and PRISMA guidelines, and conducted content analysis of the included articles. In total, 28 articles were included, which described 16 IPC approaches in palliative dementia care. The content analysis revealed three overall elements of these approaches: 1) collaborative themes, 2) collaborative processes, and 3) resources facilitating collaboration. Frequently reported collaborative themes embraced pain management and providing care in the dying phase. These themes were addressed through intertwined collaborative processes including communication, coordination, assessing and monitoring, and reflecting and evaluating. To ensure optimal IPC in palliative dementia care, various resources were required, such as PC knowledge, skills to manage symptoms, skills to communicate with collaborators, and a facilitating environment. In conclusion, the identified IPC approaches in palliative dementia care involve diverse collaborating professionals who mainly manage symptoms, prepare for the dying phase and require material and immaterial resources to enable optimal IPC in palliative dementia care.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 43/100
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 4 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 left out, no data. 24 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 43 of 100. Total 43 of 100.24 of the 56 points we could judge = 43 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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of interprofessional care)
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 4 / 5 2024 — 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 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 38757957)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 24 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total 43 / 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

Khemai, C., Leão, D. L. L., Janssen, D. J. A., Schols, J. M. G. A., & Meijers, J. M. M. (2024). Interprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care. Journal of interprofessional care. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2024.2345828

Vancouver

Khemai C, Leão DLL, Janssen DJA, Schols JMGA, Meijers JMM. Interprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care. Journal of interprofessional care. 2024. doi:10.1080/13561820.2024.2345828. PMID: 38757957.

BibTeX

@article{khemai2024-38757957,
  author  = {Khemai, C and Leão, D L L and Janssen, D J A and Schols, J M G A and Meijers, J M M},
  title   = {{Interprofessional collaboration in palliative dementia care}},
  journal = {Journal of interprofessional care},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1080/13561820.2024.2345828},
  pmid    = {38757957},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2024.2345828}
}

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Also in Health systems and care delivery

172 studies in the library are filed under Health systems and care delivery with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Health systems and care delivery hub.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →