Cited by 120Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Barriers and facilitators for GPs in dementia advance care planning: A systematic integrative review.

Open access
Tilburgs, Bram, Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra, Koopmans, Raymond, van Gennip, Hans, Engels, Yvonne, Perry, Marieke·2018·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Due to the disease's progressive nature, advance care planning (ACP) is recommended for people with early stage dementia. General practitioners (GPs) should initiate ACP because of their longstanding relationships with their patients and their early involvement with the disease, however ACP is seldom applied. AIM: To determine the barriers and facilitators faced by GPs related to ACP with people with dementia. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched the relevant databases for papers published between January 1995 and December 2016, using the terms: primary healthcare, GP, dementia, and ACP. We conducted a systematic integrative review following Whittemore and Knafl's method. Papers containing empirical data about GP barriers and/or facilitators regarding ACP for people with dementia were included. We evaluated quality using the Mixed-Method-Appraisal-Tool and analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Ten qualitative, five quantitative, and one mixed-method paper revealed four themes: timely initiation of ACP, stakeholder engagement, important aspects of ACP the conversation, and prerequisites for ACP. Important barriers were: uncertainty about the timing of ACP, how to plan for an uncertain future, lack of knowledge about dementia, difficulties assessing people with dementia's decisional capacities, and changing preferences. Facilitators for ACP were: an early start when cognitive decline is still mild, inclusion of all stakeholders, and discussing social and medical issues aimed at maintaining normal life. CONCLUSION: Discussing future care is difficult due to uncertainties about the future and the decisional capacities of people with dementia. Based on the facilitators, we recommend that GPs use a timely and goal-oriented approach and involve all stakeholders. ACP discussions should focus on the ability of people with dementia to maintain normal daily function as well as on their quality of life, instead of end-of-life-discussions only. GPs need training to acquire knowledge and skills to timely initiate collaborative ACP discussions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0198535

Cites

72 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Clinicians identify multiple barriers to initiating ACP conversations in persons living with dementia, including unpredictable illness trajectory, uncertainty about the right time to commence ACP, lack of time, resources, and knowledge, discomfort with ACP discussions, and difficulty determining the decision-making capacity of the person living with dementia.

    “Numerous factors have been identified by clinicians as barriers to initiating ACP conversations in PLwD including unpredictable illness trajectory; uncertainty about the right time to commence the ACP process [10–12]; lack of time, resources, and knowledge; discomfort with ACP discussions [8, 13]; and difficulty in determining the decision-making capacity of the PLwD [14].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tilburgs, B., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Koopmans, R., van Gennip, H., Engels, Y., & Perry, M.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Tilburgs, Bram
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2018-06-20
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
e0198535
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809596016
Cited by
119
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • ZonMw (79-73305-98-420)
  • Radboud Universitair Medisch Centrum
  • Universitas Gadjah Mada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
dementia, advance care planning, general practitioners, barriers and facilitators, early-stage dementia, decision-making capacity, stakeholder engagement, timing of advance care planning, general practice training, quality of life, primary care
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Dementia, Health Facilities, Humans, Databases, Factual, Advance Care Planning, Qualitative Research, General Practitioners

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