Josie Dixon1, Maria Karagiannidou2, Martin Knapp2. 1. Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: j.e.dixon@lse.ac.uk. 2. Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU), London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
CONTEXT: End-of-life care for people with dementia can be poor, involving emergency hospital admissions, burdensome treatments of uncertain value, and undertreatment of pain and other symptoms. Advance care planning (ACP) is identified, in England and elsewhere, as a means of improving end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and their carers. OBJECTIVE: To systematically and critically review empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of ACP in improving end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: Systematic searches of academic databases (CINAHL Plus with full text, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with full text, and PubMed) were conducted to identify research studies, published between January 2000-January 2017 and involving statistical methods, in which ACP is an intervention or independent variable, and in which end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and/or their carers are reported. RESULTS: A total of 18 relevant studies were identified. Most found ACP to be associated with some improved end-of-life outcomes. Studies were predominantly, but not exclusively, from the U.S. and care home-based. Type of ACP and outcome measures varied. Quality was assessed using National Institute of Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklists. Over half of the studies were of moderate to high quality. Three were randomized controlled trials, two of which were low quality. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more high-quality outcome studies, particularly using randomized designs to control for confounding. These need to be underpinned by sufficient development work and process evaluation to clarify the appropriateness of outcome measures, explore implementation issues and identify "active elements."
CONTEXT: End-of-life care for people with dementia can be poor, involving emergency hospital admissions, burdensome treatments of uncertain value, and undertreatment of pain and other symptoms. Advance care planning (ACP) is identified, in England and elsewhere, as a means of improving end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and their carers. OBJECTIVE: To systematically and critically review empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of ACP in improving end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: Systematic searches of academic databases (CINAHL Plus with full text, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with full text, and PubMed) were conducted to identify research studies, published between January 2000-January 2017 and involving statistical methods, in which ACP is an intervention or independent variable, and in which end-of-life outcomes for people with dementia and/or their carers are reported. RESULTS: A total of 18 relevant studies were identified. Most found ACP to be associated with some improved end-of-life outcomes. Studies were predominantly, but not exclusively, from the U.S. and care home-based. Type of ACP and outcome measures varied. Quality was assessed using National Institute of Health and Care Excellence quality appraisal checklists. Over half of the studies were of moderate to high quality. Three were randomized controlled trials, two of which were low quality. CONCLUSION: There is a need for more high-quality outcome studies, particularly using randomized designs to control for confounding. These need to be underpinned by sufficient development work and process evaluation to clarify the appropriateness of outcome measures, explore implementation issues and identify "active elements."
Authors: Elizabeth A Luth; Adoma Manful; Joel S Weissman; Amanda Reich; Keren Ladin; Robert Semco; Ishani Ganguli Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Heather Ma; Rachel E Kiekhofer; Sarah M Hooper; Sarah Dulaney; Katherine L Possin; Winston Chiong Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Mairead M Bartley; Laura Suarez; Reem M A Shafi; Joshua M Baruth; Amanda J M Benarroch; Maria I Lapid Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Corinne Pettigrew; Rostislav Brichko; Betty Black; Maureen K O'Connor; Mary Guerriero Austrom; Maisha T Robinson; Allison Lindauer; Raj C Shah; Guerry M Peavy; Kayla Meyer; Frederick A Schmitt; Jennifer H Lingler; Kimiko Domoto-Reilly; Dorothy Farrar-Edwards; Marilyn Albert Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2019-07-16 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Laura M Perry; Leah E Walsh; Ronald Horswell; Lucio Miele; San Chu; Brian Melancon; John Lefante; Christopher M Blais; James L Rogers; Michael Hoerger Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer L Wolff; Danny Scerpella; Kimberly Cockey; Naaz Hussain; Tara Funkhouser; Diane Echavarria; Jennifer Aufill; Amy Guo; Danetta H Sloan; Sydney M Dy; Kelly M Smith Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Noorhazlina Ali; Philomena Anthony; Wee Shiong Lim; Mei Sian Chong; Edward Wing Hong Poon; Vicki Drury; Mark Chan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: F Amos Bailey; Beverly R Williams; Patricia S Goode; Richard E Kennedy; David T Redden; Elizabeth Kvale; Marie Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Kathryn L Burgio Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 6.473