Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37698156›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2023

Supported decision making: Facilitating the self-determination of persons living with Alzheimer's and related diseases.

Emily A Largent, Andrew Peterson, Jason Karlawish

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Mind Care: The Moral Significance of the Dementia Caregiving Dyad.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Facing the new diagnostic and treatment options of Alzheimer's disease: The necessity of informed consent.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily A LargentDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7536-5077
Andrew PetersonDepartment of Philosophy, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Jason KarlawishDepartment of Medicine, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USGeorge Mason University · US

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG072979 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DAVID A WOLK · 2021 to 2026
$24.8M
Adapting supported decision making to promote wellbeing and improve health outcomes for persons living with Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementiasR01AG077111 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Emily Largent · 2022 to 2026
$3.1M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG072979NIA NIH HHS R01 AG077111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-making capacity describes the ability to make a particular decision at a given time. People with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and mild stage dementia typically experience an associated erosion of their decisional abilities. Many could be said to have marginal capacity. These individuals are in a liminal space between adequate and inadequate capacity. Too often, marginal capacity is overlooked as a category: individuals are classified either as having capacity and being able to make decisions independently or as lacking capacity and needing a surrogate to make decisions for them. These approaches can, respectively, result in under- or overprotection of individuals with marginal capacity. A promising alternative approach is supported decision making. In supported decision making, a person with marginal capacity identifies a trusted person or network of persons to aid them in making their own decisions. Supported decision making is recognized by law in a growing number of states; it is important for geriatricians to be familiar with the concept, as they are increasingly likely to encounter it in their practice. Even in states where supported decision making is not formally recognized, it can be practiced informally, helping patients, care partners, and clinicians strike an appropriate balance between respecting autonomy and recognizing vulnerability. In this article, we describe supported decision making, discuss its ethical and legal foundations, and identify steps by which geriatricians can incorporate it into their practice.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseCognitive DysfunctionDecision MakingHumansMental CompetencyAlzheimer'scapacitydecision makingsurrogates

Identifiers

PMID37698156
PMCPMC10841214
OpenAlexW4386624494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.