Cited by 100Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research

Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map

Open access
Lourida, Ilianna, Abbott, Rebecca A, Rogers, Morwenna, Lang, Iain A, Stein, Ken, Kent, Bridie, Thompson Coon, Jo·2017·BMC Geriatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The need to better understand implementing evidence-informed dementia care has been recognised in multiple priority-setting partnerships. The aim of this scoping review was to give an overview of the state of the evidence on implementation and dissemination of dementia care, and create a systematic evidence map. METHODS: We sought studies that addressed dissemination and implementation strategies or described barriers and facilitators to implementation across dementia stages and care settings. Twelve databases were searched from inception to October 2015 followed by forward citation and grey literature searches. Quantitative studies with a comparative research design and qualitative studies with recognised methods of data collection were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by a third where necessary. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Strategies were mapped according to the ERIC compilation. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included (30 quantitative, 34 qualitative and 24 mixed-methods studies). Approximately 60% of studies reported implementation strategies to improve practice: training and education of professionals (94%), promotion of stakeholder interrelationships (69%) and evaluative strategies (46%) were common; financial strategies were rare (15%). Nearly 70% of studies reported barriers or facilitators of care practices primarily within residential care settings. Organisational factors, including time constraints and increased workload, were recurrent barriers, whereas leadership and managerial support were often reported to promote implementation. Less is known about implementation activities in primary care and hospital settings, or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family caregivers. CONCLUSION: This scoping review and mapping of the evidence reveals a paucity of robust evidence to inform the successful dissemination and implementation of evidence-based dementia care. Further exploration of the most appropriate methods to evaluate and report initiatives to bring about change and of the effectiveness of implementation strategies is necessary if we are to make changes in practice that improve dementia care.

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/s12877-017-0528-y

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • The PRISMA-ScR was applied to a scoping review on a health-related topic to test the checklist.

    “The PRISMA-ScR was applied to a scoping review on a health-related topic (26) by participants (e.g., researchers, scientists, policy makers, managers, and students) to test the checklist .”

    From PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Methods section identifies this as a scoping review of dissemination and implementation research in dementia care, so it supports identifying the health-related review. It says the review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methods; our copy does not report that participants applied PRISMA-ScR to it to test the checklist (Methods; page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The gap between evidence and practice is particularly acute with respect to dementia care, exacerbated by the challenges of delivering dementia services in rural settings.

    “The gap between evidence and practice is particularly acute with respect to dementia care [3, 4], exacerbated by the challenges of delivering dementia services in rural settings [5–7].”
  • There is limited research on effective models for dementia care in rural primary healthcare, or evidence on sustaining and scaling them.

    “Despite the key role of primary healthcare in rural settings there is limited research on effective models for dementia care, or evidence on sustaining and scaling them.”

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: 1

  1. [24]Vasse E. A stepwise process for developing and implementing quality indicators to improve psychosocial dementia care in European countries. In Chapter 5: Barriers and facilitators in implementing quality indicators for psychosocial dementia care in European countries. Doctoral thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen, 2012. Online repository: http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/99149.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lourida, I., Abbott, R. A., Rogers, M., Lang, I. A., Stein, K., Kent, B., & Thompson Coon, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
Corresponding author
Lourida, Ilianna
Venue
BMC Geriatrics
Published
2017-07-14
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
147-147
ISSN
1471-2318 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2734874570
Cited by
100
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 1
FWCI
12.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Geriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
Alzheimer's Society (GB) (AS-PG-14-016)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Keywords
dementia care, implementation research, dissemination strategy, barriers and facilitators, evidence-informed practice, professional education and training, stakeholder engagement, residential care, organizational factors, primary care, hospital care, family caregivers
MeSH terms
Dementia, Humans, Databases, Factual, Caregivers, Evidence-Based Medicine, Qualitative Research

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