Back

Needs of key stakeholders to make advance care plans and advance directives for people with dementia - A scoping review

Vinay, R.; Ferrario, A.; Gloeckler, S.; Biller-Andorno, N.

2025-06-30 medical ethics
10.1101/2025.06.30.25330415 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAdvance care planning (ACP) and advance directives (AD) are tools for supporting person-centered decision-making. In dementia care, the progression of cognitive decline, complex family dynamics and variability in healthcare systems pose unique challenges to effective ACP/AD implementation for people with dementia (PWD). MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of the literature related to ACP/AD in dementia care between 2014-2024. Studies were screened and thematically analyzed to identify current approaches, gaps and recommendations for dementia-specific ACP/AD. We identified key stakeholders involved in decision-making and highlighted procedural components for ACP/AD according to stakeholder groups. ResultsForty studies were included. Key stakeholders included healthcare professionals (HCPs); family members and caregivers; PWD; dyads (PWD and their caregivers); the broader public; policymakers; and researchers. Prominent findings included: the role and training of HCPs; educational and decision-support needs; early and ongoing engagement of PWD; development and evaluation of dementia-specific tools; ethical and procedural challenges in end-of-life decision-making; and the importance of outreach and cultural sensitivity. Promising interventions include structured communication models, psychoeducational programs and tools, although few have been fully adapted for dementia. ConclusionDementia-specific ACP/AD require a relational, flexible and ethically grounded approach that evolves with the individuals condition. While ACP/AD should reflect the autonomous preferences of the PWD, during late-stage dementia, shared decision-making becomes central to providing care that aligns with the persons goals and preferences. Future research should focus on inclusive tools and training; timing and process facilitation; and public health strategies to improve access and equity.

Published in BMC Geriatrics (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.