"Nobody seems to know where to even turn to": Barriers in accessing and utilising dementia care services in England and The Netherlands
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Accessing post-diagnostic care can be difficult for people with dementia and their informal carers. Little is known, however, about the determinants of barriers to access, and how these might vary between countries. The aim of this study was to explore potential inequalities in access to formal dementia care services between England and the Netherlands, specifically from more disadvantaged areas. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study, involving semi-structured qualitative interviews and a carer questionnaire. People with dementia and informal carers were recruited by clinicians. The postal survey was co-produced with people with dementia, informal carers, and health care professionals. The survey asked carers about their own and their relatives with dementia's, social support service usage and financing; as well as how they were made aware of services and whether they required more support. Qualitative transcripts were analysed by two researchers in each country using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 103 carer questionnaires were received by post and 13 interviews were conducted with people with dementia and family carers between January 2020 and April 2020. Many services were accessed via self-funding. Thematic analysis generated five core themes: Health literacy; Having faith and lack of faith; Service suitability; Structural issues surrounding service provision; and Financing care. One major difference between both country's systems of care were the case manager and network support which people with dementia and carers benefitted from in the Netherlands, which was rarely the case in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: People with dementia and informal carers need to be supported better in accessing formal dementia care services in both the UK and the Netherlands, whilst some learning can be taken to improve access.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Existing health care systems remain poorly equipped to meet the needs of people with dementia, despite long-standing recognition of these issues.
“The persistence of structural health and social care fragmentation and information gaps suggests that existing health care systems remain poorly equipped to meet the needs of this population, despite long-standing recognition of these issues in the literature (Giebel et al., 2021; Martin et al., 2020).”
From Mind the gap: a systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and experiences of care transitions for people living with dementia and their informal caregivers. (2026) · cites this paper as Giebel et al., 2021
The Introduction says post-diagnostic dementia support is often inadequate and fragmented, and the Results describe information gaps as a structural barrier. The paper studies access to care in England and the Netherlands; it does not establish that health care systems generally remain poorly equipped or that these specific issues have been recognised for a long time. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 54
- Authors
- Giebel, C., Robertson, S., Beaulen, A., Zwakhalen, S., Allen, D., & Verbeek, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Liverpool (GB)
- Alderhey NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool L14 5AB, UK
- Maastricht University (NL)
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Giebel, Clarissa
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2021-11-22
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 12233
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8622725
- OpenAlex
- W3216664958
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 5.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Alzheimer's Society (419)
- National Institute for Health Research (ARC NWC)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Social Sciences › Education › Healthcare innovation and challenges
- Keywords
- dementia services, access barriers, informal caregivers, family caregivers, health literacy, health care financing, self-financing, case management, social support services, faith and religion, health disparities, underserved areas, cross-national comparison, England, Netherlands
- MeSH terms
- Dementia, England, Humans, Netherlands, Social Support, Caregivers
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