4.5 Review

Preferences regarding disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 26, 期 10, 页码 1603-1618

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610214000969

关键词

attitude of health personnel; dementia; diagnosis; disclosure; early diagnosis; informed consent; patient preference; primary health care

资金

  1. Stoffels-Hornstra foundation
  2. National Programme for Improving Care for Older Persons (ZonMw) [313080201]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Studies in memory clinics suggest that the majority of patients would like to know of a diagnosis of dementia. It is less clear what preferences are in the community. Our objective was to review the literature on preferences regarding disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia and to assess key arguments in favor of and against disclosure. Methods: Systematic search of empirical studies was performed in Pubmed, Embase, and Psycinfo. We extracted preferences of individuals without cognitive impairment (general population; relatives of dementia patients; and physicians) and preferences of individuals referred to a memory clinic or already diagnosed with dementia. A meta-analysis was done using a random effects model. Our main conclusions are based on studies with a response rate >= 75%. Results: We included 23 articles (9.065 respondents). In studies with individuals without cognitive impairment, the pooled percentage in favor of disclosure was 90.7% (95% CI: 83.8%-97.5%). In studies with patients who were referred to a memory clinic or already diagnosed with dementia, the pooled percentage that considered disclosure favorable was 84.8% (95% CI: 75.6%-94.0%). The central arguments in favor of disclosure pertained to autonomy and the possibility to plan one's future. Arguments against disclosure were fear of getting upset and that knowing has no use. Conclusions: The vast majority of individuals without and with cognitive impairment prefers to be informed about a diagnosis of dementia for reasons pertaining to autonomy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据