ArticleThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2010
Implications of the Impact Survey for payors across Europe.
Article in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The time has arrived to meet the challenge of Alzheimer's disease in Europe.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People involved with development of health care policy must be appreciative of the social and economic challenges that will likely develop as a result of the rise in Alzheimer's disease (AD) as the 21st century progresses. Their attitudes, perceptions and understanding regarding AD were captured in the IMPACT survey, a 30-minute Web-based questionnaire. Fifty health policy managers and decision-makers (payors) were recruited, 10 each from 5 European countries--France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Most payors felt that AD was underdiagnosed and undertreated in their country (80% and 68%, respectively). Half of all payors felt that their government did not invest enough in treating AD, and 30% felt their government hindered access to drug therapy. Payors believed that treatment should be initiated as early as possible after a diagnosis of AD (82%), and that early treatment can delay progression of the disease (82%). Even more than caregivers, payors agreed that AD can have devastating effects on the family of the sufferer (90% vs 75%; P<0.05). Payors more often cited cancer, stroke and heart disease than AD as affecting their budgets, but cited AD more often than depression, diabetes, HIV/AIDs and arthritis. Cost savings were seen as the most important factor regarding policy decisions. These attitudes of the surveyed payors towards AD and the patients and caregivers affected by it suggest that they may advocate for national and international policies that will facilitate earlier diagnosis and improved access to treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.