Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35676942›Full record

ReviewAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)2022

How do person-centered outcome measures enable shared decision-making for people with dementia and family carers?-A systematic review.

Jesutofunmi Aworinde, Clare Ellis-Smith, Juliet Gillam, Moïse Roche, Lucy Coombes, Emel Yorganci, Catherine J Evans

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Co-Designing a Palliative Dementia Care Framework to Support Holistic Assessment and Decision Making: The EMBED-Care Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jesutofunmi AworindeCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation King's College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2597-6670
Clare Ellis-SmithCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation King's College London London UK.
Juliet GillamCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation King's College London London UK.
Moïse RocheDivision of Psychiatry University College London London UK.
Lucy CoombesCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation King's College London London UK.
Emel YorganciCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation King's College London London UK.
Catherine J EvansCicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation King's College London London UK.
King's College London · GBRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To identify published evidence on person-centered outcome measures (PCOMs) used in dementia care and to explore how PCOMs facilitate shared decision-making and improve outcomes of care. To build a logic model based on the findings, depicting linkages with PCOM impact mechanisms and care outcomes. Design: Mixed-methods systematic review. We searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ASSIA from databases and included studies reporting experiences and/or impact of PCOM use among people with dementia, family carers, and/or practitioners. Groen Van de Ven's model of collaborative deliberation informed the elements of shared decision-making in dementia care in the abstraction, analysis, and interpretation of data. Data were narratively synthesized to develop the logic model. Setting: Studies were conducted in long-term care, mixed settings, emergency department, general primary care, and geriatric clinics. Participants: A total of 1064 participants were included in the review. Results: Ten studies were included. PCOMs can facilitate shared decision-making through "knowing the person," "identifying problems, priorities for care and treatment and goal setting," "evaluating decisions", and "implementation considerations for PCOM use." Weak evidence on the impact of PCOMs to improve communication between individuals and practitioners, physical function, and activities of daily living. Conclusions: PCOMs can enable shared decision-making and impact outcomes through facilitating collaborative working between the person's network of family and practitioners to identify and manage symptoms and concerns. The constructed logic model demonstrates the key mechanisms to discuss priorities for care and treatment, and to evaluate decisions and outcomes. A future area of research is training for family carers to use PCOMs with practitioners.

Indexed as

communicationdecision‐makingdementiaoutcome assessmentpatient‐centered carequality of life

Identifiers

PMID35676942
PMCPMC9169867
OpenAlexW4285150893

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.