Cited by 176Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Predictors of long-term care placement in persons with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Predictors of LTC placement in persons with dementia

Cepoiu-Martin, Monica, Tam-Tham, Helen, Patten, Scott, Maxwell, Colleen J., Hogan, David B.·2016·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective The main objective of this study was to summarize the effects of various individual, caregiver, and system-related factors on the risk of long-term care (LTC) placement for persons with dementia. Methods We searched electronic databases for longitudinal studies reporting on predictors of LTC placement for persons with dementia residing in the community or supportive care settings. We performed meta-analyses with hazard ratios (HRs) of various predictors using random effects models and stratified the HRs with several study variables. Data on predictors not included in the meta-analyses were summarized descriptively. Results Full-text reviews of 360 papers were performed with data from 37 papers used to calculate pooled HRs for LTC placement of select person with dementia (age, sex, race, marital status, type of dementia, living arrangement, and relationship to caregiver) and caregiver (age, sex, and depressive symptoms) characteristics. White race [HR = 1.67, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.41-1.99], greater dementia severity (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06), and older age (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03) increased the risk of LTC placement. Married persons with dementia (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.16-0.86) and living with their caregiver (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.92) had a lower risk. Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, the degree of functional impairment, and caregiver burden had a consistent effect on the risk of LTC placement in our descriptive review. Con…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.4449

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cepoiu-Martin, M., Tam-Tham, H., Patten, S., Maxwell, C. J., & Hogan, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine; University of Calgary; Calgary Alberta Canada
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-04-04
Volume
31
Issue
11
Pages
1151-1171
ISSN
0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2340975015
Cited by
175
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
AXA Research Fund (RSO 1020984)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dementia, long-term care placement, institutionalization, risk factors, caregiver burden, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, functional disability, marital status, race, dementia severity, caregiver depressive symptoms, community-dwelling older adults
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Dementia, Depression, Humans, Long-Term Care, Longitudinal Studies, Risk Factors, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review