↓ Skip to main content

Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
163 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edel Murphy, Katherine Froggatt, Sheelah Connolly, Eamon O'Shea, Elizabeth L Sampson, Dympna Casey, Declan Devane

Abstract

Dementia is a chronic, progressive and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disease. Advanced dementia is characterised by profound cognitive impairment, inability to communicate verbally and complete functional dependence. Usual care of people with advanced dementia is not underpinned universally by a palliative approach. Palliative care has focused traditionally on care of people with cancer but for more than a decade, there have been increased calls worldwide to extend palliative care services to include all people with life-limiting illnesses in need of specialist care, including people with dementia. To assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia and to report on the range of outcome measures used. We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 4 February 2016. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization ICTRP trial portal to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. We searched for randomised (RCT) and non-randomised controlled trials (nRCT), controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series studies evaluating the impact of palliative care interventions for adults with dementia of any type, staged as advanced dementia by a recognised and validated tool. Participants could be people with advanced dementia, their family members, clinicians or paid care staff. We included clinical interventions and non-clinical interventions. Comparators were usual care or another palliative care intervention. We did not exclude studies on the basis of outcomes measured and recorded all outcomes measured in included studies. Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. We resolved any disagreement through discussion or, when required, consulted with the rest of the review team. We independently extracted data and conducted assessment of methodological quality, using standard Cochrane methods. We identified two studies of palliative care interventions for people with advanced dementia. We did not pool data due to the heterogeneity between the two trials in terms of the interventions and the settings. The two studies measured 31 different outcomes, yet they did not measure the same outcome. There are six ongoing studies that we expect to include in future versions of this review.Both studies were at high risk of bias, in part because blinding was not possible. This and small sample sizes meant that the overall certainty of all the evidence was very low.One individually randomised RCT (99 participants) evaluated the effect of a palliative care team for people with advanced dementia hospitalised for an acute illness. While this trial reported that a palliative care plan was more likely to be developed for participants in the intervention group (risk ratio (RR) 5.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 25.02), the plan was only adopted for two participants, both in the intervention group, while in hospital. The palliative care plan was more likely to be available on discharge in the intervention group (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.03 to 19.75). We found no evidence that the intervention affected mortality in hospital (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13), decisions to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital or the clinical care provided during hospital admission, but for the latter, event rates were low and the results were associated with a lot of uncertainty.One cluster RCT (256 participants, each enrolled with a family carer) evaluated the effect of a decision aid on end-of-life feeding options on surrogate decision-makers of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Data for 90 participants (35% of the original study) met the definition of advanced dementia for this review and were re-analysed for the purposes of the review. In this subset, intervention surrogates had lower scores for decisional conflict measured on the Decisional Conflict Scale (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.01, reduction of 0.3 to 0.4 units considered meaningful) and were more likely than participants in the control group to discuss feeding options with a clinician (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.64), but imprecision meant that there was significant uncertainty about both results. Very little high quality work has been completed exploring palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. There were only two included studies in this review, with variation in the interventions and in the settings that made it impossible to conduct a meta-analysis of data for any outcome. Thus, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The fact that there are six ongoing studies at the time of this review indicates an increased interest in this area by researchers, which is welcome and needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 163 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Unknown 256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 19%
Student > Bachelor 40 16%
Researcher 28 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 8%
Other 50 19%
Unknown 46 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 22%
Psychology 24 9%
Social Sciences 13 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 58 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 126. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2020.
All research outputs
#137,642
of 14,485,273 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#284
of 10,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,215
of 381,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,485,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.