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.

⚠ Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment (LST) are an important component of advance care planning. This study examined whether determinants of LST preferences differ according to living arrangement among Korean older adults. Methods Data from 6,682 adults aged ≥ 65 years participating in the 2023 National Survey of Older Koreans were analyzed. Participants with dementia, depression, or cognitive impairment were excluded. The sample was stratified into couples only (n = 3,787), with offspring (n = 756), and alone (n = 2,139). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with LST acceptance. Results More than 92% of participants in all groups declined LST. However, factors associated with LST acceptance differed according to living arrangement. Among couples, younger age, urban residence, limited activities of daily living, smartphone non-use, and the absence of heart disease were associated with greater acceptance. Among those living with offspring, current smoking and infrequent alcohol consumption were associated with greater acceptance. Among those living alone, stroke was associated with increased acceptance of LST, whereas religious affiliation, heart disease, and pain-related disease were associated with lower acceptance. Conclusions Although most Korean older adults declined LST regardless of living arrangement, determinants of LST preferences differed according to household structure. These findings suggest that advance care planning may benefit from approaches tailored to the social and health contexts associated with different living arrangements. Trial registration: Not applicable. This study is a secondary analysis of data from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (KLoSA) and did not involve a clinical trial or healthcare intervention.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 16/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 2 of 10; Journal's citation record 0 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 4 of 10; How recent 5 of 5; Sample size 3 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 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 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 28 of the 62 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Raw total 45 of 100, shown as 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed research article.raw total 45 of 100capped at 16 — hatched points do not count

Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 45 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 28 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 2 / 10 Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square)
Journal's citation record 0 / 4 Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 4 / 10 Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server.
How recent 5 / 5 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 3 / 4 3,787 participants
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 (participant count stated)
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 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 28 / 62 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 100 Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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

Hwang, I. C., Kim, S. H., Lee, Y. J., Choi, Y. S., & Ahn, H. Y. (2026). Living arrangements shape the determinants of life-sustaining treatment preferences among Korean older adults. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10441296/v1

Vancouver

Hwang IC, Kim SH, Lee YJ, Choi YS, Ahn HY. Living arrangements shape the determinants of life-sustaining treatment preferences among Korean older adults. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10441296/v1.

BibTeX

@article{hwang2026-bc771d3f,
  author  = {Hwang, I. C. and Kim, S. H. and Lee, Y. J. and Choi, Y. S. and Ahn, H. Y.},
  title   = {{Living arrangements shape the determinants of life-sustaining treatment preferences among Korean older adults}},
  journal = {Research Square},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10441296/v1},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10441296/v1}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also in Cognitive tests and assessment

88 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →