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.

44/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 44 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

We interviewed 30 participants (9 PWD, 21 carepartners). Four themes were identified (with related subthemes): 1) PWD and carepartners varied in using decision-making approaches for medical interventions for PWD (a) variations in views about decision-making load; (b) Progressive involvement of carepartners in ACP decision-making as cognition erodes; 2) medical intervention decisions were an inflection point to evaluate values for dyads and involved tradeoffs with implications for end-of-life care and quality of life 3) lack of discussion with clinical team about impact of medical interventions on dementia burdened dyads; 4) decisional quality was facilitated by: (a) a trusting relationship with clinicians; and (b) a multidisciplinary team approach. Most patients with mild-to-moderate dementia and carepartners approach medical intervention decision-making guided by their understanding of the dementia prognosis, but the risks of medical interventions are often unaddressed in discussions with the clinical team, sometimes burdening dyads with undesirable consequences to their quality-of-life. Clinicians should provide dementia-related risks regarding medical intervention outcomes to best facilitate decision-making conversations and advance care planning.

What this study adds

Evidence grade: Low

The record lists 30 participants. It recommends clinicians provide dementia-related risks to facilitate decision-making and advance care planning.

Taken from this record’s own fields, not from reading the paper. The grade is assigned from the abstract’s wording; what that means.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Porteny, T., Lynch, M., Covaleski, A., Tjia, J., GAZARIAN, P. K., Reich, A. J., et al. (2025). Medical decision-making experiences of persons with dementia and their carepartners: a qualitative study. BMC Palliative Care. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-025-01710-9

Vancouver

Porteny T, Lynch M, Covaleski A, Tjia J, GAZARIAN PK, Reich AJ, et al. Medical decision-making experiences of persons with dementia and their carepartners: a qualitative study. BMC Palliative Care. 2025. doi:10.1186/s12904-025-01710-9. PMID: 40205431.

BibTeX

@article{porteny2025-40205431,
  author  = {Porteny, Thalia and Lynch, Mary and Covaleski, Audrey and Tjia, Jennifer and GAZARIAN, PRISCILLA KEDDY and Reich, Amanda Jane and Perez, Stephen M. and Kennefick, Kristen and others},
  title   = {{Medical decision-making experiences of persons with dementia and their carepartners: a qualitative study}},
  journal = {BMC Palliative Care},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12904-025-01710-9},
  pmid    = {40205431},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-025-01710-9}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record lists 30 participants. Ask whether that is enough for the question, and who they were.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

We interviewed 30 participants (9 PWD, 21 carepartners).
Four themes were identified (with related subthemes): 1) PWD and carepartners varied in using decision-making approaches for medical interventions for PWD (a) variations in views about decision-making load; (b) Progressive involvement of carepartners in ACP decision-making as cognition erodes; 2) medical intervention decisions were an inflection point to evaluate values for dyads and involved tradeoffs with implications for end-of-life care and quality of life 3) lack of discussion with clinical team about impact of medical interventions on dementia burdened dyads; 4) decisional quality was facilitated by: (a) a trusting relationship with clinicians; and (b) a multidisciplinary team approach.
Most patients with mild-to-moderate dementia and carepartners approach medical intervention decision-making guided by their understanding of the dementia prognosis, but the risks of medical interventions are often unaddressed in discussions with the clinical team, sometimes burdening dyads with undesirable consequences to their quality-of-life.
Clinicians should provide dementia-related risks regarding medical intervention outcomes to best facilitate decision-making conversations and advance care planning.

Why it matters

This qualitative study of 30 participants found that most patients with mild-to-moderate dementia and carepartners approach medical intervention decisions guided by their understanding of dementia prognosis, but risks of medical interventions are often unaddressed with the clinical team. It recommends clinicians provide dementia-related risks to facilitate decision-making and advance care planning.

Study details

Participants30
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 44/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC Palliative Care)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	BMC Palliative Care: journal h-index 88 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	1 / 4	30 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 3 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 2.5× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 1 other studies in this library
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Keren Ladin: h-index 33 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 6 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40205431)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	44 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.

Related studies in End-of-life care from nearby years

Also tagged “nursing”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nursing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →