Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702214›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2024

Shared care planning in people with cognitive disorders and dementia: a survey among patients and caregivers in Italy.

Corinna Porteri, Giulia Ienco, Edda Mariaelisa Turla, Mariassunta Piccinni, Patrizio Pasqualetti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Corinna PorteriBioethics Unit, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Via Pilastroni, 4, Brescia, 25125, Italy. cporteri@fatebenefratelli.eu.
Giulia IencoBioethics Unit, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Via Pilastroni, 4, Brescia, 25125, Italy.
Edda Mariaelisa TurlaBioethics Unit, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Via Pilastroni, 4, Brescia, 25125, Italy.
Mariassunta PiccinniDepartment of Political Science, Law and International Studies - SPGI, Università di Padova, Padua, Italy.
Patrizio PasqualettiDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Section of Medical Statistics, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is wide convergence in the positions of scientific societies, patient associations and public bodies regarding the advisability of advance care planning (ACP) in cognitive disorders and dementia to respect the specificity of the person. Nevertheless, planning in advance for dementia represents a unique challenge. In Italy, law n. 219/2017 introduced ACP for the first time at the regulatory level, under the name of shared care planning (SCP). Few surveys on the law implementation have been conducted in Italy, but none have specifically involved patients with cognitive disorders and their caregivers. To contribute filling the gap, we conducted a survey among patients and caregivers attending a memory clinic to investigate what their knowledge, attitudes and experiences were regarding SCP.

methodsWe developed two semi-structured questionnaires for patients and caregivers organized into the following sections: (i) knowledge of the law; (ii) general attitude on SCP; (iii) experience about SCP; (iv) attitude about realizing a SCP; (v) advance directives. Participation in the survey was offered to consecutive patients discharged from the memory clinic during 26 target weeks and to their caregivers. The interviews were conducted on the occasion of the last scheduled visit to the facility; telephone interview was also provided. Information was collected by means of an online platform (Google Forms). Descriptive and basic inferential analysis was performed by means of SPSS (IBM). The analysis of the open-ended questions was also conducted with the support of the Voyant Tools.

resultsSixty-six patient and 65 caregiver interviews were collected. No participant reported that a doctor has ever talked to the patient about SCP. The large majority of patients (85%) and almost all caregivers (95%) agree/absolutely agree with the opportunity for patients to realize SCP. Almost all participants agree/absolutely agree with the usefulness for the patients of indicating a trusted person to act on their behalf (91% patients and 95% caregivers). Forty-three (65%) patients and 48 (74%) caregivers believe it would be good to start SCP with the patient when the time is right. Among them, 20 caregivers and 12 patients believe it is already time to talk about SCP.

conclusionsStudy results showed patients' and caregivers' interest in the SCP process and, at the same time, their mixed attitude when SCP is referred specifically to themselves or their loved ones. This indicates the need to introduce the discourse on SCP into clinical practice while remaining very sensitive to the individual patient's pace and wishes, including his/her possible refusal to talk about SCP.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningCaregiversDementiaAdultAdvance DirectivesAgedAged, 80 and overCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvance care planningAdvance directivesCognitive disorderDementiaInformed consentLaw n. 219/2017Shared care planning

Identifiers

PMID39702214
PMCPMC11660457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.