SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025
Digital Decision Aids to Support Decision-Making in Palliative and End-of-Life Dementia Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How is shared decision making used in the treatment of patients with liver disease? a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- From inferring preferences to enabling choice: potentials of digital tools to improve substitute decision-making.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Impact of telehealth on health outcomes and quality of life in the older adults population: a systematic review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMaking a care-related decision is a complex cognitive process. Patient decision aids could provide information on potential options about risks and benefits, incorporate individual values and preferences, and help people with dementia or their family carers make decisions about palliative and end-of-life care.
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to critically evaluate and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of digital decision aids to support decision-making in palliative and end-of-life care for patients with dementia, their family carers, or clinicians.
methodsA systematic literature search in 4 health-related databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was performed in September 2024. Articles were included if the study focused on the development and evaluation of a digital decision support tool on end-of-life dementia care, used an experimental design, and was available in full text in English. Studies using a nonexperimental design were excluded. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool Version 2.0 or the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions Version 2.0 was used to assess risk of bias. Narrative synthesis and meta-analyses were performed to comprehensively summarize the technologies and outcomes of the decision aids.
resultsThe literature search across datasets identified a total of 1274 records. With an additional 5 records from citation searching and reference reviewing, a total of 20 articles were included, with 10 studies using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 pretest-posttest pilot studies. Technologies of visual aids, videos, web pages, and telehealth were reported in the included studies to support decision-making for end-of-life dementia care. Most decision aids focused on the decision about the primary goal of care (life-prolonging care, limited care, and comfort care), except for 1 visual aid focusing on the decisions about feeding tube placement and drug treatment for dementia. Most decision aids engaged both patients and their family carers. Pilot studies examining feasibility showed that most participants found these decision aids relevant to their needs and easy to use, and were able to complete the intervention sessions. Meta-analyses of 4 RCTs showed that video decision aids were effective in increasing the proportion of participants opting for comfort care (odds ratio 3.81, 95% CI 1.92-7.56) but inconclusive for the proportion of documented do-not-hospitalize orders (odds ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.70-3.67), compared to the control group.
conclusionsInternet-based decision aids offer a feasible and acceptable approach to support the shared decision-making between patients, families, and clinicians. The included studies reported various outcome measures, including preferred goal of care, quality of palliative care, decision-making performance, and health care use. More large-scale RCTs are needed, and consistent outcome measures should be considered to evaluate the effects of end-of-life decision aids.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42024621321; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024621321.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.