Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26076729›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2015

Attitudes and preferences towards screening for dementia: a systematic review of the literature.

Steven Martin, Sarah Kelly, Ayesha Khan, Sarah Cullum, Tom Dening, Greta Rait, Chris Fox, Cornelius Katona, Theodore Cosco, Carol Brayne and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Management of brain-heart multimorbidity: a clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Mini-Cog for the detection of dementia within a secondary care setting.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Public attitudes toward dementia risk prediction: A mixed-methods study.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Steven MartinCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. sm987@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Sarah KellyCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. sak65@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Ayesha KhanCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ak739@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Sarah CullumAcademic Unit of Psychiatry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. sarah.cullum@nhs.net.
Tom DeningInstitute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Tom.Dening@nottingham.ac.uk.
Greta RaitResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL Medical School, UCL, London, UK. g.rait@ucl.ac.uk.
Chris FoxFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich, UK Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Chris.Fox@uea.ac.uk.
Cornelius KatonaDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK. c.katona@ucl.ac.uk.
Theodore CoscoCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ldc33@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Carol BrayneCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. cb105@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Louise LafortuneCambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ll394@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Alzheimer's Society 129
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation screening might provide a mechanism to enable early detection of dementia. Yet the potential benefits, harms or acceptability of such a large-scale intervention are not well understood. This research aims to examine the attitudes and preferences of the general public, health care professionals, people with dementia and their carers towards population screening for dementia.

methodsA systematic review of the international literature was undertaken. A search of fifteen bibliographic databases was conducted (up to 12 July 2012; no language restriction) using terms related to dementia, screening, specific screening tools, case finding, and attitudes and preferences; genetic screening and biomarkers were excluded. All study designs were included except opinion-based papers. Included papers were doubly quality assessed and thematically analysed using NVivo.

results29,910 papers were identified of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. We identified seventeen themes relating to the 3 phases of the screening process (pre-, in- and post-screen) - none emerged as more of a facilitator than a barrier to the acceptance of dementia screening. Seven themes emerged in relation to the patient, carer and general population: existing health state; lifestyle and life view; awareness of dementia; role of clinician; communication; benefit; and role of the family. Ten themes emerged in relation to the clinician and healthcare professional: patient's existing health and comorbidities; awareness of dementia; confidence; duration of patient contact; suitability of screening tool; cost; disclosure; time; treatment and prognosis; and stigma.

conclusionsAs for all screening programmes, screening for dementia raises complex issues around preference and choice for clinicians and the public, and it is unclear what specific factors promote or reduce screening acceptance the most. Overall, the level of evidence is low, few large scale studies have been undertaken and none were conducted in representative samples, all affecting the generalizability of identified themes across healthcare contexts. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that population screening for dementia may not be acceptable to either the general public or health care professionals, and highlight where focused efforts are needed to gain insights into dementia specific issues.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMass ScreeningPatient PreferenceDementiaHumans

Identifiers

PMID26076729
PMCPMC4469007
OpenAlexW1580331389

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.