Cited by 284Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review.

Open access
Bamford, Claire, Lamont, Sharon, Eccles, Martin, Robinson, Louise, May, Carl, Bond, John·2004·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The issue of diagnostic disclosure in dementia has been debated extensively in professional journals, but empirical data concerning disclosure in dementia has not previously been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To review empirical data regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched up to September 2003 (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science). Additional references were identified through hand searches of selected journals and bibliographies of relevant articles and books. The title and abstract of each identified paper were reviewed independently by two reviewers against pre-determined inclusion criteria: original data about disclosure were presented and the paper was in English. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a structured abstraction form. Data quality were not formally assessed although each study was critically reviewed in terms of methodology, sampling criteria, response rates and appropriateness of analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria for detailed review. Many of the studies had methodological shortcomings. The studies reported wide variability in all areas of beliefs and attitudes to diagnostic disclosure and reported practice. Studies of the impact of disclosure indicate both negative and positive consequences of diagnostic disclosure for people with dementia and their carers. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia is both inconsistent and limited with the perspectives of people with dementia being largely neglected. This state of knowledge seems at variance with current guidance about disclosure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.1050

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Bamford, C., Lamont, S., Eccles, M., Robinson, L., May, C., & Bond, J.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Eccles, Martin
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01-28
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
151-169
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W2030702569
Cited by
284
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 34
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dementia, diagnosis disclosure, caregivers, people with dementia, professional practice
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Health, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Research Design, Truth Disclosure, 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