Underdiagnosis of dementia in primary care: Variations in the observed prevalence and comparisons to the expected prevalence
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dementia is a major and growing health problem. Diagnosis is an important step in the access to care, but many dementia patients remain undiagnosed. This study investigated the magnitude and variation in the difference between 'observed' and 'estimated' prevalence of dementia in general practices. We also explored practice characteristics associated with observed prevalence rates. METHOD: Six Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) provided data on all general practices (N = 351) in their area in terms of number of doctors, patient list size, number of patients over 65 years of age, socio-economic deprivation status of practices and number of patients on dementia registers. RESULTS: The average observed prevalence overall of dementia amongst patients 65 years and over was 3.0% [95CI 2.8, 3.2]. The observed prevalence was 54.5% [95CI 49.2, 58.9] lower than the prevalence observed in the epidemiological studies in the UK. For an average size general practice (list size of 5269 patients) approximately 27 [95CI 22, 32] patients with dementia may remain undiagnosed. Statistically significant differences in prevalence rates were found between the different PCTs (Wald chi-square = 103.8 p < 0.001). The observed prevalence of dementia was significantly lower among practices run by one GP compared to multiple GPs (p = 0.003), and in more affluent areas (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Just under a half of the expected numbers of patients with dementia are recognised in GP dementia registers. The underdiagnosis of dementia varies with practice characteristics, socio-economic deprivation and between PCTs, which has implications for the local implementation of the National Dementia Strategy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Greater prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed dementia exists in areas of greatest deprivation.
“Evidence points to greater prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed dementia among some minority ethnic groups [67], and in areas of greatest deprivation [68].”
From The Impact of demographic, socio-economic and geographic factors on mortality risk among people living with dementia in England (2002–2016) (2021) · cites this paper as [68]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 307
- Authors
- Connolly, A., Gaehl, E., Martin, H., Morris, J., & Purandare, N.
- Affiliations
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
- Wythenshawe Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Purandare, Nitin
- ORCID
- Morris, Julie
- Venue
- Aging & Mental Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 978-984
- ISSN
- 1360-7863 (ISSN-L)
- 1364-6915
- OpenAlex
- W2058269934
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 6.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aging & Mental Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- underdiagnosis of dementia, dementia prevalence, primary care, general practice, socioeconomic deprivation, practice characteristics, National Dementia Strategy, older adults, primary care trusts
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Dementia, Diagnostic Errors, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Prevalence, General Practice
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