SynthesisBMC medical ethics2026
The perspectives of healthcare professionals on dignity care for people with dementia: a qualitative meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in BMC medical ethics, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe global aging population has rendered dementia a critical public health challenge, with approximately 47 million people affected worldwide in 2015, a number projected to reach 132 million by 2050. Upholding dignity is widely recognized as a core ethical obligation in dementia care. However, the perspectives of healthcare professionals, who serve as the direct practitioners of dignity care, have not yet been systematically synthesized.
aimThis study aims to systematically synthesize qualitative research on healthcare professionals' perspectives regarding dignity care for patients with dementia in order to inform clinical practice, care management, and policy development.
methodsThis study followed the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ). A systematic search was conducted across ten Chinese and English databases, including PubMed, from database inception to November 25, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened articles against eligibility criteria and assessed quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. A total of 13 studies were included, comprising qualitative studies and the qualitative components of mixed methods studies that explored healthcare professionals' perspectives on dignity care for patients with dementia. Data were synthesized using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach.
resultsThe synthesis generated four analytical themes and twelve subthemes: (1) the ethical foundation of dignity care; (2) multidimensional practice strategies for dignity care; (3) dilemmas and adaptive strategies in dignity care; and (4) influencing factors of dignity care. Across these themes, healthcare professionals described central tensions involving the dynamic balance between authenticity and protection, autonomy support and necessary care, and professional boundaries and emotional connection.
conclusionDignity care for patients with dementia is not a standardized technical procedure, but a dynamic, context-bound practice grounded in ethical relationships. Its realization requires not only individual ethical sensitivity and practical wisdom but also supportive organizational cultures, adequate institutional resources, and broader societal recognition of the value of elderly care.
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.