Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40380303›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2025

"You like to be in control of your own destiny to a degree, don't you?": conscientious autonomy and planning for future care with dementia.

Josie Dixon, Jacqueline Damant, Edmund Stubbs, Ben Hicks, Kate Gridley, Derek King, Eleanor Miles, Sube Banerjee, DETERMIND team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

9 authors.

Josie DixonCare Policy and Evaluation Centre (CPEC), London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2 A 2 AE, United Kingdom. j.e.dixon@lse.ac.uk.
Jacqueline DamantCare Policy and Evaluation Centre (CPEC), London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2 A 2 AE, United Kingdom.
Edmund StubbsCare Policy and Evaluation Centre (CPEC), London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2 A 2 AE, United Kingdom.
Ben HicksInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Innovation Park, Triumph Road, Nottingham, NG7 2 TU, United Kingdom.
Kate GridleySocial Policy Research Unit, University of York, York YO10 5DD, Heslington, United Kingdom.
Derek KingCare Policy and Evaluation Centre (CPEC), London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2 A 2 AE, United Kingdom.
Eleanor MilesSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Sussex House, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RH, United Kingdom.
Sube BanerjeeFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Room E51b, Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, United Kingdom.
DETERMIND team

Funding

Alzheimer's Society 401 (AS-PG-17b-015)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe explored people with dementia and their family carers' experiences of future care planning, guided by Kukla's model of conscientious autonomy. This relational autonomy concept focuses on the alignment of self-managed health-care practices with people's authentic goals and values. It involves people adopting recommended practices for their own authentic reasons, questioning them where necessary, and being supported by the health and care system to understand their rationale and implement them effectively.

methodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 16 people recently diagnosed with dementia and 31 family carers, purposively and selectively sampled from a large research cohort on the basis of their 'conscientiousness,' using the indicator of already having had informal family conversations about future care. Data were analysed thematically using NVivo software and methods informed by interpretive grounded theory.

findingsParticipants sought to feel secure by following recommended practices, manage uncertainty, avoid crises, share burdens within families, and avoid poor end-of-life experiences. However, support was often lacking. Many were unable to speak with specialists and described limited conversations with GPs, leaving them with unaddressed questions. Some described feelings of abandonment. Disease progression was commonly poorly explained, with some participants later encountering information they found confronting. Carers who continued researching the condition felt responsible but under-resourced for discussing disease progression with their relative and believed this should be undertaken by a professional. Formal processes-e.g. Lasting Power of Attorney (LPAs), advance care planning, Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) could prompt informal discussions but gaining an overview was difficult, with confusion about how they would be utilised, what information to include and apparent overlap between processes. Misunderstandings about medical and end-of-life decision-making were commonplace.

conclusionIf even those who are most conscientious about planning for future care struggle to access adequate support, others likely face greater challenges. Clearer communication, at an individual and public level, about disease progression, the practical challenges of medical and end-of-life decision-making, and palliative care options is urgently needed. Early group education sessions and communication strategies that engage with existing lay concepts and public discourse are likely to be helpful. Formal care planning processes should be clearer, more streamlined, and better aligned with the practical goals of people with dementia and their family carers.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningDementiaPersonal AutonomyAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchAdvance care planningAutonomyDementiaEnd of lifeFuture care planning

Identifiers

PMID40380303
PMCPMC12082967

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.