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 38 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective An integrative review of the literature on advance care planning (ACP) preferences and practices from the perspective of persons with dementia (PWDs) was conducted, both to learn how health-care providers might engage and empower PWDs in ACP during the early stages of dementia and to identify where researchers should focus future work to improve ACP in this population. Methods In November 2017, CINAHL, Legal Collection, PsycINFO, PubMed, and SocIndex were searched for empirical studies with PWDs as participants and ACP as a topic of interest. Results Eighteen articles, which sampled 1304 PWDs, were found, focusing on 4 domains: engagement in and correlates of ACP participation; ability and attitudes toward ACP participation; ACP interventions; and values and preferences for end of life (EOL). Demographics were reported for correlates of participation. Many PWDs held a neutral to negative view toward ACP, although values exploration exercises in interventions were well received. No intervention study reported significant findings for ACP participation. Most PWDs emphasized the importance of family at EOL. Conclusion Research is needed with methodologically rigorous designs and theoretical frameworks that examine cognitive, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing ACP attitudes, preferences, and behaviors among PWDs in order to improve engagement among this population.

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

APA 7th

Geshell, L., Kwak, J., & Radhakrishnan, K. (2019). Perspectives and Experiences of Persons With Dementia With Advance Care Planning: An Integrative Literature Review. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988719853040

Vancouver

Geshell L, Kwak J, Radhakrishnan K. Perspectives and Experiences of Persons With Dementia With Advance Care Planning: An Integrative Literature Review. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. 2019. doi:10.1177/0891988719853040. PMID: 31189355.

BibTeX

@article{geshell2019-31189355,
  author  = {Geshell, L. and Kwak, J. and Radhakrishnan, K.},
  title   = {{Perspectives and Experiences of Persons With Dementia With Advance Care Planning: An Integrative Literature Review}},
  journal = {Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1177/0891988719853040},
  pmid    = {31189355},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988719853040}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
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 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / 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; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology)
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 2019 — within 10 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)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31189355)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total 38 / 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.

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

Related studies in End-of-life care

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 →