Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32631304›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2020

Evaluation of decision-making capacity in patients with dementia: challenges and recommendations from a secondary analysis of qualitative interviews.

Christopher Poppe, Bernice S Elger, Tenzin Wangmo, Manuel Trachsel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christopher PoppeInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Bernice S ElgerInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Tenzin WangmoInstitute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Manuel TrachselInstitute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 30, CH-8006, Zürich, Switzerland. manuel.trachsel@uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-2697-3631

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung 406740_139294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of decision-making capacity to consent to medical treatment has proved to be difficult in patients with dementia. Studies showed that physicians are often insufficiently trained in the evaluation of decision-making capacity. In this study, we present findings from a secondary analysis of a qualitative interviews with physicians. These interviews were initially used to assess usability of an instrument for the evaluation of decision-making capacity. By looking at difficult cases of decision-making capacity evaluation in patients with dementia, we provide recommendations for such evaluations in clinical practice.

methodsWe used thematic coding to analyse physicians' narratives of problematic decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia to uncover challenging issues of decision-making capacity evaluation.

resultsIn this study, decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia were mainly perceived as challenging when they pertained to treatment refusals and treatment unrelated circumstances, such as psychiatric consultation, advance directives, and new living arrangements. Furthermore, the physicians reported training needs regarding situation-independent challenges with decision-making capacity evaluation.

conclusionsUpon further examining self-reported training needs and challenging cases, we have developed recommendations to improve decision-making capacity evaluations in clinical practice. In these recommendations, we argue that being able to evaluate decision-making capacity is an integral part of the informed consent process.

Indexed as

DementiaPhysiciansAdvance DirectivesDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentAutonomyCompetenceDecision-making capacityDementiaEthicsInformed consent

Identifiers

PMID32631304
PMCPMC7339476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.