Home › Research › End-of-life care
Three methods of assessing values for advance care planning: comparing persons with and without dementia
Karel MJ, Moye J, Bank A, Azar AR.. Journal of aging and health, 2007-02-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Advance care planning ideally includes communication about values between patients, family members, and care providers. This study examined the utility of health care values assessment tools for older adults with and without dementia. Adults aged 60 and older, with and without dementia, completed three values assessment tools-open-ended, forced-choice, and rating scale questions-and named a preferred surrogate decision maker. Responses to forced-choice items were examined at 9-month retest. Adults with and without dementia appeared equally able to respond meaningfully to questions about values regarding quality of life and health care decisions. People with dementia were generally as able as controls to respond consistently after 9 months. Although values assessment methods show promise, further item and scale development work is needed. Older adults with dementia should be included in clarifying values for advance care planning to the extent that they desire and are able.
Key findings
- Responses to forced-choice items were examined at 9-month retest.
- Adults with and without dementia appeared equally able to respond meaningfully to questions about values regarding quality of life and health care decisions.
- People with dementia were generally as able as controls to respond consistently after 9 months.
- Although values assessment methods show promise, further item and scale development work is needed.
- Older adults with dementia should be included in clarifying values for advance care planning to the extent that they desire and are able.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
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. 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 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of aging and health) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2007 — within 20 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 | — / 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 17215205) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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
Karel, M. J., Moye, J., Bank, A., & Azar, A. R. (2007). Three methods of assessing values for advance care planning: comparing persons with and without dementia. Journal of aging and health. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264306296394
Vancouver
Karel MJ, Moye J, Bank A, Azar AR. Three methods of assessing values for advance care planning: comparing persons with and without dementia. Journal of aging and health. 2007. doi:10.1177/0898264306296394. PMID: 17215205.
BibTeX
@article{karel2007-17215205,
author = {Karel, M. J. and Moye, J. and Bank, A. and Azar, A. R.},
title = {{Three methods of assessing values for advance care planning: comparing persons with and without dementia}},
journal = {Journal of aging and health},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1177/0898264306296394},
pmid = {17215205},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264306296394}
}