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 74 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Patients with dementia often have significant symptom burden and a progressive course of functional deterioration. Specialist palliative care referral may be helpful, but it is unclear who and when patients should be referred. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine referral criteria for palliative care among patients with dementia. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and CINAHL databases for articles from inception to December 3, 2019, related to specialist palliative care referral for dementia. Two investigators independently reviewed the citations for inclusion, extracted the referral criteria, and categorized them thematically. Results Of the 1788 citations, 59 articles were included in the final sample. We identified 13 categories of referral criteria, including 6 disease-based and 7 needs-based criteria. The most commonly discussed criterion was "dementia stage" (n = 43, 73%), followed by "new diagnosis of dementia" (n = 17, 29%), "medical complications of dementia" (n = 12, 20%), "prognosis" (n = 11, 19%), and "physical symptoms" (n = 11, 19%). Under dementia stage, 37/44 (84%) articles recommended a palliative care referral for advanced dementia. Pneumonia (n = 6, 10%), fall/fracture (n = 4, 7%), and decubitus ulcers (n = 4, 7%) were most commonly discussed complications to trigger a referral. Under prognosis, the time frame for referral varied from <2 years of life expectancy to <6 months. 3 (5%) of articles recommended "surprise question" as a potential trigger. Conclusions This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding referral criteria for palliative care in patients with dementia and the need to identify timely triggers to standardize referral.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 74/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 1 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 0 of 2. 43 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 74 of 100. Total 74 of 100.43 of the 58 points we could judge = 74 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported 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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 43 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 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
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 33655535)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100.
Total 74 / 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

Mo, L., Geng, Y., Chang, Y. K., Philip, J., Collins, A., & Hui, D. (2021). Referral criteria to specialist palliative care for patients with dementia: A systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17070

Vancouver

Mo L, Geng Y, Chang YK, Philip J, Collins A, Hui D. Referral criteria to specialist palliative care for patients with dementia: A systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2021. doi:10.1111/jgs.17070. PMID: 33655535.

BibTeX

@article{mo2021-33655535,
  author  = {Mo, L. and Geng, Y. and Chang, Y. K. and Philip, J. and Collins, A. and Hui, D.},
  title   = {{Referral criteria to specialist palliative care for patients with dementia: A systematic review}},
  journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
  year    = {2021},
  doi     = {10.1111/jgs.17070},
  pmid    = {33655535},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.17070}
}

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 →