Cited by 75Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Difficulties in disclosing the diagnosis of dementia: a qualitative study in general practice

Open access
Phillips, Jill, Pond, Constance Dimity, Paterson, Nerida Elizabeth, Howell, Cate, Shell, Allan, Stocks, Nigel P, Goode, Susan M, Marley, John E·2012·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Dementia is an insidious and stigmatised condition, and research indicates that GPs find communicating this diagnosis particularly problematic. Delays in diagnosis may impede optimal patient care. Little research has been published on Australian GPs' perceptions of barriers to disclosing the diagnosis of dementia. AIM: To explore GPs' perceptions of barriers to disclosing the diagnosis of dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in the general practice consultation context. METHOD: Semi-structured, audiorecorded interviews were conducted with GPs from three capital cities and one regional centre in Australia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: GPs' lack of confidence in having a correct diagnosis, concern to act in patients' best interests, and the stigma associated with the 'dementia' label influenced the disclosure process. GPs found it challenging to identify dementia in the consultation context. It was difficult to raise the issue when both the patient and their family/carer(s) ignore/are unaware of symptoms of cognitive decline. Referral to a specialist was favoured to confirm suspicions, although this did not always result in a definitive diagnosis. Opinions differed as to whether the GP or the specialist was better placed to deliver the diagnosis. GPs preferred disclosure to the patient with his/her family/carer(s) present; associated issues of confidentiality and the importance of offering hope emerged. The severity of the patient's dementia also guided the diagnostic disclosure process. GPs often used euphemisms for dementia when disclosing the diagnosis, to soften the message. CONCLUSION: Complex issues surround the disclosure of dementia. Communicating this diagnosis remains particularly challenging for many GPs.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp12x653598

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • Euphemisms are often used when talking about dementia at the time of disclosure in order to soften the impact of the news.

    “As highlighted in the study by Phillips et al, euphemisms are often used in talking about dementia at the time of disclosure in order to mitigate the impact of the news.27”

    From The Unique Experience of Spouses in Early-Onset Dementia (2013) · cites this paper as [27]

  • Lack of GP confidence in diagnosing, or lack of knowledge of dementia in primary care may result in issues around dementia diagnosis, resulting in issues with defining dementia date of diagnosis.

    “Lack of GP confidence in diagnosing, or lack of knowledge of dementia in primary care may result in issues around dementia diagnosis, resulting in issues with defining dementia date of diagnosis [66].”

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. Pond D, Paterson N, Shell A, et al. I don't necessarily use that term: Australian GPs' attitudes to breaking the news of dementia [abstract]. 39th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Academic Primary Care Annual Conference. Norwich, 7-9July 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, J., Pond, C. D., Paterson, N. E., Howell, C., Shell, A., Stocks, N. P., Goode, S. M., & Marley, J. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2012-08
Volume
62
Issue
601
Pages
e546-e553
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2117175456
Cited by
75
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (351220)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
dementia, diagnosis disclosure, general practitioners, barriers to disclosure, physician confidence, dementia stigma, cognitive decline, specialist referral, confidentiality, euphemism, family involvement, delayed diagnosis
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Australia, Confidentiality, Dementia, Humans, Perception, Physician-Patient Relations, Truth Disclosure, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Qualitative Research, 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