Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41584416›Full record

ReviewCurrent health sciences journal

A Systematic Review of Advance Care Planning with People Living with Dementia: Learnings from the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Irina-Lavinia Soica, Nuriye Kupeli, Khadijah Eyitayo-Olonade, Nathan Davies

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current health sciences journal. 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

4 authors.

Irina-Lavinia SoicaUniversity College London Faculty of Medical Sciences, 74 Huntley St, London.
Nuriye KupeliMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, UCL, Tottenham Court Road, London.
Khadijah Eyitayo-OlonadeUniversity College London Faculty of Medical Sciences, 74 Huntley St, London.
Nathan DaviesCentre for Ageing Population Studies, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, Rowland Hill Street, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study focused on exploring the experiences of people with dementia (PD) with advance care planning (ACP) during the pandemic. We analyzed the barriers and facilitators to implementing ACP and made recommendations for research, practice and policy. Regarding the design, the review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. Three databases (CINAHL, PUBMED, Embase) were searched, and records from 2019-2023 were screened against eligibility criteria. The experiences of PD in various international settings, including care homes, community hospitals, tertiary health settings and research facilities were explored. More precisely, we followed PD and their carers who engaged with ACP tools during the pandemic, while applying qualitative and quantitative measurements. The results were based on nine studies that were included. Themes related to timing of ACP, methods used to conduct ACP during the pandemic and the topics discussed. The pandemic prompted discussions about goals of care and PD found digital interventions to be a viable alternative to in-person ACP. Barriers to this included accessibility issues, difficulty with using technology, and lack of electronic means. In conclusion, digital ACP interventions are a viable method of delivering ACP, but they should be adapted and used alongside in-person consultations.

Indexed as

Advance care planningCOVID-19dementiadigitalsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41584416
PMCPMC12831548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.