Cited by 275Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Rapid appraisal of barriers to the diagnosis and management of patients with dementia in primary care: a systematic review

Open access
the EVIDEM-ED project, Koch, Tamar, Iliffe, Steve·2010·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of dementia in primary care is perceived as a problem across countries and systems, resulting in delayed recognition and adverse outcomes for patients and their carers. Improving its early detection is an area identified for development in the English National Dementia Strategy 2009; there are thought to be multiple benefits to the patient, family, and resources by doing this. The aim of this review was to carry out a rapid appraisal in order to inform the implementation of this policy. METHOD: Publications in English up to August 2009 relating to barriers to the recognition of dementia, were identified by a broad search strategy, using electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and psycINFO. Exclusion criteria included non-English language, studies about pharmacological interventions or screening instruments, and settings without primary care. RESULTS: Eleven empirical studies were found: 3 quantitative, 6 qualitative, and 2 with mixed methodologies. The main themes from the qualitative studies were found to be lack of support, time constraints, financial constraints, stigma, diagnostic uncertainty, and disclosing the diagnosis. Quantitative studies yielded diverse results about knowledge, service support, time constraints, and confidence. The factors identified in qualitative and quantitative studies were grouped into 3 categories: patient factors, GP factors and system characteristics. CONCLUSION: Much can still be done in the way of service development and provision, GP training and education, and the eradication of stigma attached to dementia, to improve the early detection and management of dementia. Implementation of dementia strategies should include attention to all three categories of barriers. Further research should focus on their interaction, using different methods from studies to date.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2296-11-52

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Personal style, defined as the perceived fit between the intervention and the preferred style of clinical practice, personality, and philosophical opposition to the intervention, was presented exclusively as a barrier.

    “Personal style, defined as the perceived fit between the intervention and the preferred style of clinical practice, such as clinicians’ communication style [78, 79], personality [54] and philosophical opposition to the intervention [69, 76], were presented exclusively as barriers.”
  • Perceptions of barriers may be socially constructed, and addressing them may not necessarily improve implementation.

    “Perceptions of barriers may be socially constructed, and addressing them may not necessarily improve implementation [79].”

    From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [79]

    The Discussion’s Summary of Findings identifies doctor, patient or societal, and system barriers, and the Abstract’s Conclusion recommends attending to all three categories. Neither passage says that perceptions of barriers are socially constructed or that addressing them may fail to improve implementation. Searches for those ideas in the indexed copy found no supporting passage; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
the EVIDEM-ED project, Koch, T., & Iliffe, S.
Affiliations
The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Koch, Tamar
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2010-07-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
52-52
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049017668
Cited by
275
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1005)
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
dementia, barriers to diagnosis, early detection, primary care, general practitioners, dementia stigma, diagnostic uncertainty, diagnosis disclosure, general practice training, time constraints, financial constraints, National Dementia Strategy, dementia management
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Dementia, Humans, Primary Health Care, Disease Management, Early Diagnosis

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