Cited by 87Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues

Dementia care in rural and remote settings: A systematic review of formal or paid care

Morgan, Debra, Innes, Anthea, Kosteniuk, Julie·2011·Maturitas

Abstract

Objectives The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the available evidence from the published scientific literature on dementia care and service provision in rural and remote settings from the perspective of formal/paid caregiving, in order to assess the current state of knowledge, identify policy and practice implications, and make recommendations for future research.Methods A systematic review of the literature indexed in ISI Web of Knowledge, PsychInfo, Medline, Healthstar, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Sociological Abstracts was conducted. Data were extracted from papers meeting inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed papers that focused on dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD), examined care or service provision in relation to persons with AD or dementia, and relevant to rural or remote care or services.Results The search identified 872 articles for review, reduced to 72 after removing duplicates and articles not meeting criteria. Of the 72 remaining, 46 are included in this current review focusing on formal or paid care. A future review will focus on the 26 studies on informal/unpaid care. Six themes that correspond to the current state of knowledge in rural dementia care in the 46 included studies were: diagnostic processes, service provision, service models and programs, staff education and support needs, use of technology, and long-term care.Conclusions Despite the growing body of evidence over the 20 years covered by this review, much of the research is descriptive and/or based on small sample sizes, and distributed across the care continuum. Hence the body of evidence on which to base policy and program decisions remains limited. More research is needed that would support the development of comprehensive rural dementia care models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.09.008

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Morgan, D., Innes, A., & Kosteniuk, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Morgan, Debra
  • Innes, Anthea
  • Kosteniuk, Julie
Venue
Maturitas
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
68
Issue
1
Pages
17-33
ISSN
0378-5122 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062924476
Cited by
87
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Maturitas (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Keywords
dementia care, rural health care, remote areas, Alzheimer's disease, long-term care, care service provision, care technology, dementia diagnosis, models of care
MeSH terms
Dementia, Patient Care, Humans, Rural Population, United States, Rural Health Services

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