ArticleThe Gerontologist2026
Negotiating participation in conversations about care planning between people living with mild neurocognitive disorders and their healthcare proxies: a single case analysis.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe time between diagnosis with a mild neurocognitive disorder (MND) and definitive loss of decisional capacity presents a window of opportunity to participate in advance care planning (ACP). To implement early planning, we need to know how to promote healthy relationships between people with MND and their healthcare proxies. Our objective is to examine how people with MND and their proxies discuss engagement in ACP and how proxies orient toward the ability and right of the person with MND to provide answers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsWe undertake a conversation analysis of an interview related to ACP between a researcher, a person with MND and their proxy, recorded in Switzerland.
resultsThe way in which the proxy and the researcher orient to the person with MND changes throughout the interview. In the beginning, they recognize the person with MND as a knowledgeable and competent participant (facilitating answers or allowing her to speak first). Later, practices bypass the speakership primacy of the person with MND (correcting or describing her as dependent). The person with MND sometimes resists these stances, for example, by contradicting her proxy's answer. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study contributes to understandings of how the epistemic rights of a person with MND to participate and provide information within interactions are constructed variably. This has implications for promoting the people with MND's individual and relational autonomy in interactions and decision-making and developing awareness-raising resources about how to improve the conditions of decisional autonomy of people with MND.
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.