Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41021468›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2025

An account of personal autonomy for people living with dementia.

Andrew Douglas Heslop Stumpf, Erin McKenzie, Avery Beavers

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Andrew Douglas Heslop StumpfDepartment of Philosophy, St Jerome's University in the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4330-371X
Erin McKenzieSchool of Social Work, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Avery BeaversHealth and Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Insight 435-2022-0530
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesPeople living with dementia see autonomy as central to their well-being, and loss of autonomy is one of the things people diagnosed with dementia fear the most. Effective support of autonomy requires us to understand carefully what autonomy is and to structure care plans and health policy in accordance with that understanding. Many recent social scientific studies of autonomy in people with dementia do not carefully operationalize the term "autonomy." This is problematic because autonomy is a highly ambiguous term that points to a complex reality. We distill from the relevant philosophical and empirical literatures a conceptually clear and empirically informed account that is relevant to the experience of people living with dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe present a general account of the concept of personal autonomy, drawing on existing philosophical literature. We then test the relevance of this account via a scoping review of empirical research reporting on the experience of personal autonomy in persons living with dementia.

resultsWith the assumption that adequate relational supports are in place, all aspects of our philosophically informed account of personal autonomy (decisional autonomy, authenticity, and executional autonomy) are compatible with the experience of persons living with dementia. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: With adequate relational support, personal autonomy remains an achievable goal even in contexts of moderate to severe dementia. A conception of personal autonomy that is both theoretically and empirically informed can help guide efforts to study and support personal autonomy in persons living with dementia.

Indexed as

DementiaPersonal AutonomyDecision MakingHumansAuthenticityCapacityDecision-makingInterdisciplinaryPerson-centered care

Identifiers

PMID41021468
PMCPMC12578510

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.