Cited by 50Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Effectiveness of different post-diagnostic dementia care models delivered by primary care: a systematic review

Open access
Frost, Rachael, Walters, Kate, Aw, Su, Brunskill, Greta, Wilcock, Jane, Robinson, Louise, Knapp, Martin, Dening, Karen Harrison +4 more·2020·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background: Global policy recommendations suggest a task-shifted model of post-diagnostic dementia care, moving towards primary and community-based care. It is unclear how this may best be delivered. Aim: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care-based models of post-diagnostic dementia care. Design and setting: A systematic review of trials and economic evaluations of post-diagnostic dementia care interventions where primary care was substantially involved in care plan decision making. Method: Searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL (from inception to March 2019). Two authors independently critically appraised studies and inductively classified interventions into types of care models. Random effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis was conducted for each model where appropriate. Results: From 4506 unique references and 357 full texts, 23 papers were included from 10 trials of nine interventions, delivered in four countries. Four types of care models were identified. Primary care provider (PCP)-led care ( n = 1) led to better caregiver mental health and reduced hospital and memory clinic costs compared with memory clinics. PCP-led care with specialist consulting support ( n = 2) did not have additional effects on clinical outcomes or costs over usual primary care. PCP–case management partnership models ( n = 6) offered the most promise, with impact on neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver burden, distress and mastery, and healthcare costs. Integrated primary care memory clinics ( n = 1) had limited evidence for improved quality of life and cost-effectiveness compared with memory clinics. Conclusion: Partnership models may impact on some clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. More rigorous evaluation of promising primary care-led care models is needed.

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/bjgp20x710165

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.

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?

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 30 · Cited by 50

Authors
Frost, R., Walters, K., Aw, S., Brunskill, G., Wilcock, J., Robinson, L., Knapp, M., Dening, K. H., Allan, L., Manthorpe, J., Rait, G., & on behalf of the PriDem Study project team
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • Dementia UK (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2020-05-18
Volume
70
Issue
695
Pages
e434-e441
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W3027664413
Cited by
50
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alzheimer's Society
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0616-10054, PR‐PRU‐1217‐21002)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
primary care, task shifting, models of care, case management, memory clinics, caregiver mental health, caregiver burden, neuropsychiatric symptoms, health care costs, cost-effectiveness, integrated primary care
MeSH terms
Cost-Benefit Analysis, Dementia, Humans, Primary Health Care, Quality of Life, Health Care Costs

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