ArticleEuropean journal of neurology2024
Diverging medical and legal perceptions of the need for legal guardianship in people with dementia: A qualitative study.
Article in European journal of neurology, 2024. 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.
- Evaluating Large Language Models for AI-Assisted Decision Support in Legal Capacity Assessment: A Comparative Study Using Interdisciplinary Medical Board Recommendations as the Expert Medical Reference Standard.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Dementia subtype specification and cognitive evidence visibility in Turkish Court of Cassation decisions: a document analysis of 1,031 decisions (2005-2025).BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Diverging medical and legal perceptions of the need for legal guardianship in people with dementia: A qualitative study.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDementia is assumed to alter mental capacity, which may necessitate legal guardianship. However, only limited research exists on how dementia affects mental capacity, and most studies have focused solely on a medical perspective and concentrate on memory functions. The aim of this qualitative study was to investigate physicians' and legal experts' perceptions on a broad range of cognitive and neuropsychiatric domains potentially affecting mental capacity and the need for guardianship in people with dementia.
methodsPhysicians (N = 30) and legal experts (N = 20) participated in semi-structured individual interviews. The data were analyzed by using content analysis and further semi-quantified according to the cognitive and neuropsychiatric domains.
resultsPhysicians considered neuropsychiatric symptoms and executive dysfunction to be the most important deficits in the legal context, while legal experts highlighted episodic memory impairment and dyscalculia. Perceptions regarding the importance of several cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms varied between and within the professional groups.
conclusionsPhysicians and legal experts diverged in their perceptions of cognitive and neuropsychiatric domains affecting mental capacity and the need for guardianship. The evaluation and influence of medical evidence among legal experts heavily rely on subjective opinions. Given the substantial potential impact on patients' equal access to their rights, developing standardized guidelines is essential.
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.