Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25656075›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2015

What should we know about dementia in the 21st century? A Delphi consensus study.

Michael J Annear, Christine Toye, Frances McInerney, Claire Eccleston, Bruce Tranter, Kate-Ellen Elliott, Andrew Robinson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael J AnnearWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, University of Tasmania, Medical Sciences 1, 17 Liverpool St, Hobart, 7000, Australia. Michael.annear@utas.edu.au.
Christine ToyeSchool of Nursing & Midwifery, Curtin University, Western Australia, GPO BOX U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia. C.Toye@curtin.edu.au.
Frances McInerneyWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, University of Tasmania, Medical Sciences 1, 17 Liverpool St, Hobart, 7000, Australia. Fran.McInerney@utas.edu.au.
Claire EcclestonWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, University of Tasmania, Medical Sciences 1, 17 Liverpool St, Hobart, 7000, Australia. Claire.Eccleston@utas.edu.au.
Bruce TranterSchool of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 22, Hobart, 7001, Australia. Bruce.Tranter@utas.edu.au.
Kate-Ellen ElliottWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, University of Tasmania, Medical Sciences 1, 17 Liverpool St, Hobart, 7000, Australia. KateEllen.Elliott@utas.edu.au.
Andrew RobinsonWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, University of Tasmania, Medical Sciences 1, 17 Liverpool St, Hobart, 7000, Australia. Andrew.Robinson@utas.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEscalating numbers of people are experiencing dementia in many countries. With increasing consumer needs, there is anticipated growth in the numbers of people providing diagnostic evaluations, treatments, and care. Ensuring a consistent and contemporary understanding of dementia across all of these groups has become a critical issue. This study aimed to reach consensus among dementia experts from English speaking countries regarding essential and contemporary knowledge about dementia.

methodsAn online Delphi study was conducted to examine expert opinion concerning dementia knowledge with three rounds of data collection. A sample of dementia experts was selected by a panel of Australian experts, including a geriatrician and three professors of aged care. Purposive selection was initially undertaken with the sample expanded through snowballing. Dementia experts (N = 19) included geriatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, dementia advocates, and nurse academics from the United Kingdom, United States, and Australia. In the first round, these participants provided open-ended responses to questions determining what comprised essential knowledge about dementia. In the second round, responses were summarised into 66 discrete statements that participants rated on the basis of importance. In the third round, a rank-ordered list of the 66 statements and a group median were provided and participants rated the statements again. The degree of consensus regarding importance ratings was determined by assessing median, interquartile range, and proportion of experts scoring above predetermined thresholds. Correlation scores were calculated for each statement after the final round to identify changes in statement scores.

resultsThe Delphi experts identified 36 statements about dementia that they considered essential to understanding the condition. Statements about care for a person experiencing dementia and their care giver represented the largest response category. Other statements, for which full or very high consensus was reached, related to dementia characteristics, symptoms and progression, diagnosis and assessment, and treatment and prevention.

conclusionsThese results summarise knowledge of dementia that is considered essential across expert representatives of key stakeholder groups from three countries. This information has implications for the delivery of care to people with the condition and the development of dementia education programs.

Indexed as

DementiaAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaClinical CompetenceComprehensionConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID25656075
PMCPMC4326452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.