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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 50 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

This research, a descriptive qualitative analysis of self-defined serious illness goals, expands the knowledge of what goals are important beyond the physical-making existing disease-specific guidelines more holistic. Integration of goals of care discussions and documentation is standard for quality palliative care but not consistently executed into general and specialty practice. Over 14 months, lay health-care workers (care guides) provided monthly supportive visits for 160 patients with advanced heart failure, cancer, and dementia expected to die in 2 to 3 years. Care guides explored what was most important to patients and documented their self-defined goals on a medical record flow sheet. Using definitions of an expanded set of whole-person domains adapted from the National Consensus Project (NCP) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 999 goals and their associated plans were deductively coded and examined. Four themes were identified-medical, nonmedical, multiple, and global. Forty percent of goals were coded into the medical domain; 40% were coded to nonmedical domains-social (9%), ethical (7%), family (6%), financial/legal (5%), psychological (5%), housing (3%), legacy/bereavement (3%), spiritual (1%), and end-of-life care (1%). Sixteen percent of the goals were complex and reflected a mix of medical and nonmedical domains, "multiple" goals. The remaining goals (4%) were too global to attribute to an NCP domain. Self-defined serious illness goals express experiences beyond physical health and extend into all aspects of whole person. It is feasible to elicit and record serious illness goals. This approach to goals can support meaningful person-centered care, decision-making, and planning that accords with individual preferences of late life.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 50/100
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 2 of 5; Sample size 2 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 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 29 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 50 of 100. Total 50 of 100.29 of the 58 points we could judge = 50 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The American journal of hospice & palliative 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 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 160 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 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28330379)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 29 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100.
Total 50 / 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

Schellinger, S. E., Anderson, E. W., Frazer, M. S., & Cain, C. L. (2018). Patient Self-Defined Goals: Essentials of Person-Centered Care for Serious Illness. The American journal of hospice & palliative care. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909117699600

Vancouver

Schellinger SE, Anderson EW, Frazer MS, Cain CL. Patient Self-Defined Goals: Essentials of Person-Centered Care for Serious Illness. The American journal of hospice & palliative care. 2018. doi:10.1177/1049909117699600. PMID: 28330379.

BibTeX

@article{schellinger2018-28330379,
  author  = {Schellinger, S. E. and Anderson, E. W. and Frazer, M. S. and Cain, C. L.},
  title   = {{Patient Self-Defined Goals: Essentials of Person-Centered Care for Serious Illness}},
  journal = {The American journal of hospice \& palliative care},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1177/1049909117699600},
  pmid    = {28330379},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1049909117699600}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Also tagged “delirium”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →