ArticleInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2022
Longitudinal differences in everyday preferences: Comparisons between people with cognitive impairment and their care partners.
Article in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on everyday preferences for persons with cognitive impairment.International psychogeriatrics · 2024Article
- Projection of Care Partners' Preferences in the Proxy Assessments of Everyday Preferences for Persons With Cognitive Impairment.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2023Article
- Longitudinal Changes in Neuropsychiatric Symptoms: Impact of Discrepancy in Everyday Preferences Between Persons With Cognitive Impairment and Their Care Partners.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPersons with progressive cognitive impairment (CI) increasingly rely on surrogate decision-makers for everyday activities. Yet, little is known about changes in everyday preferences over time or about concordance between persons with CI and their care partners regarding longitudinal changes.
methodsThe sample included 48 dyads of persons with CI (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale score ≥0.5) and their care partners. The Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory was used to assess importance of preferences among persons with CI at baseline and follow-up (mean 486 days). Care partners separately completed concurrent proxy assessments. Mixed random and fixed effects longitudinal models were used to evaluate changes in ratings and concordance levels between persons with CI and care partners.
resultsThere were significant gender differences regarding importance ratings of "autonomous choice" and "social engagement" preferences over time: women with CI rated these preferences as more important across time as a whole. Higher levels of neuropsychiatric symptoms were associated with less importance of "social engagement" preferences across time as a whole for persons with CI and a more negative discrepancy between persons with CI and care partner proxy assessments as time went on.
conclusionThis study yields new insights into predictors of longitudinal change in everyday preferences among persons with CI and their care partners. Although preferences were largely stable over time, there is increasing support for the relationship between differences in "social engagement" preferences and neuropsychiatric symptoms, which may have implications for monitoring and/or treatment in the context of cognitive impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.