Cited by 127Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Dementia care costs and outcomes: a systematic review

Open access
Knapp, Martin, Iemmi, Valentina, Romeo, Renee·2013·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We reviewed evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prevention, care and treatment strategies in relation to dementia. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of available literature on economic evaluations of dementia care, searching key databases and websites in medicine, social care and economics. Literature reviews were privileged, and other study designs were included only to fill gaps in the evidence base. Narrative analysis was used to synthesise the results. RESULTS: We identified 56 literature reviews and 29 single studies offering economic evidence on dementia care. There is more cost-effectiveness evidence on pharmacological therapies than other interventions. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for mild-to-moderate disease and memantine for moderate-to-severe disease were found to be cost-effective. Regarding non-pharmacological treatments, cognitive stimulation therapy, tailored activity programme and occupational therapy were found to be more cost-effective than usual care. There was some evidence to suggest that respite care in day settings and psychosocial interventions for carers could be cost-effective. Coordinated care management and personal budgets held by carers have also demonstrated cost-effectiveness in some studies. CONCLUSION: Five barriers to achieving better value for money in dementia care were identified: the scarcity and low methodological quality of available studies, the difficulty of generalising from available evidence, the narrowness of cost measures, a reluctance to implement evidence and the poor coordination of health and social care provision and financing.

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 · 10.1002/gps.3864

Cites

46 of 46 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2006. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): London, UK.
  2. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2009. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (amended). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): London, UK.
  3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2011. Donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine (review) and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Review of NICE technology appraisal guidance 111. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): London, UK.
  4. SBU. 2008. Dementia -Caring, Ethics, Ethnical and Economical Aspects. A Systematic Review. Volume 3. The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care: Stockholm, Sweden.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Knapp, M., Iemmi, V., & Romeo, R.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Centre for the Economics of Mental Health Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London London UK
Corresponding author
Knapp, Martin
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-08-12
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
551-561
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W1940929028
Cited by
126
References
46
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9
FWCI
1.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Alzheimer's Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dementia care, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, cognitive stimulation therapy, occupational therapy, respite care, personal budgets, implementation barriers, health and social care coordination
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Delivery of Health Care, Dementia, Humans, Preventive Health Services, Health Care Costs

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