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.

34/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 34 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Four attributes distinguished situations in which either approach is preferred: understanding, trust, readiness, and momentum. For the order-setting approach, understanding, trust, and readiness of person and care partner were prerequisites for momentum (time right to express preferences), when not triggered for urgent medical reasons. In contrast, the goal-eliciting approach would help understand the person, foster trust, and create readiness from a first conversation. Without a clear trigger, however, momentum would need to be created. Skill in employing various approaches to ACP conversations, each with specific benefits, could help tailor ACP to the individual and their situation. Further theoretical and empirical research, including in other populations and settings, may inform person-centered ACP.

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

APA 7th

van der Steen, J. T., Xu, J., Tros, W., & Blom, J. W. (2026). Optimizing Approaches in Advance Care Planning in Dementia as Perceived by General Practitioners. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.04.618

Vancouver

van der Steen JT, Xu J, Tros W, Blom JW. Optimizing Approaches in Advance Care Planning in Dementia as Perceived by General Practitioners. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.04.618. PMID: 42069237.

BibTeX

@article{vandersteen2026-42069237,
  author  = {van der Steen, Jenny Theodora and Xu, Jingyuan and Tros, Willemijn and Blom, Jeanet W.},
  title   = {{Optimizing Approaches in Advance Care Planning in Dementia as Perceived by General Practitioners}},
  journal = {Journal of Pain and Symptom Management},
  year    = {2026},
  doi     = {10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.04.618},
  pmid    = {42069237},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.04.618}
}

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

Four attributes distinguished situations in which either approach is preferred: understanding, trust, readiness, and momentum.
For the order-setting approach, understanding, trust, and readiness of person and care partner were prerequisites for momentum (time right to express preferences), when not triggered for urgent medical reasons.
In contrast, the goal-eliciting approach would help understand the person, foster trust, and create readiness from a first conversation.
Without a clear trigger, however, momentum would need to be created.
Skill in employing various approaches to ACP conversations, each with specific benefits, could help tailor ACP to the individual and their situation.

Why it matters

This study identified four attributes—understanding, trust, readiness and momentum—that distinguish when different advance care planning approaches are preferred for people with dementia. It is about tailoring care conversations, not treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 34/100

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.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Pain and Symptom Management)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	Journal of Pain and Symptom Management: journal h-index 213 (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	5 / 5	2026 — within 1 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	0 / 7	Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026
Impact for its field and year	0 / 6	Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	2 / 4	Last-listed author Jeanet W. Blom: h-index 33 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	King's College London: institution h-index 1,348 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42069237)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	34 / 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 this one cites

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

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 →