Trial reportPLoS medicine2017
Effectiveness of an intervention to facilitate prompt referral to memory clinics in the United Kingdom: Cluster randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of 2 Pretreatment Methods in Antifogging of Goggles in a COVID-19 Isolation Ward: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of emergency nursing · 2022Trial
- Trial
- The IDEMCare Study-Improving Dementia Care in Black African and Caribbean Groups: A feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2018Trial
- Practical guide for determining whether healthcare providers are research participants in cluster randomised trials.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Guideline recommendations on the role of the general practitioner in the diagnosis of dementia: a protocol for a scoping review of clinical practice guidelines.HRB open research · 2024Article
- Article
- GERO Cohort Protocol, Chile, 2017-2022: Community-based Cohort of Functional Decline in Subjective Cognitive Complaint elderly.BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
- "We need a one-stop-shop": co-creating the model of care for a multidisciplinary memory clinic with community members, GPs, aged care workers, service providers, and policy-makers.BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
- The value of the GP's clinical judgement in predicting dementia: a multicentre prospective cohort study among patients in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Article
- Does Elevated Alcohol Consumption Delay the Diagnostic Assessment of Cognitive Impairment among Older Adults?Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders extraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost people with dementia do not receive timely diagnosis, preventing them from making informed plans about their future and accessing services. Many countries have a policy to increase timely diagnosis, but trials aimed at changing general practitioner (GP) practice have been unsuccessful. We aimed to assess whether a GP's personal letter, with an evidence-based leaflet about overcoming barriers to accessing help for memory problems-aimed at empowering patients and families-increases timely dementia diagnosis and patient presentation to general practice. METHODS AND FINDING: Multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial with raters masked to an online computer-generated randomisation system assessing 1 y outcome. We recruited 22 general practices (August 2013-September 2014) and 13 corresponding secondary care memory services in London, Hertfordshire, and Essex, United Kingdom. Eligible patients were aged ≥70 y, without a known diagnosis of dementia, living in their own homes. There were 6,387 such patients in 11 intervention practices and 8,171 in the control practices. The primary outcome was cognitive severity on Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Main secondary outcomes were proportion of patients consulting their GP with suspected memory disorders and proportion of those referred to memory clinics. There was no between-group difference in cognitive severity at diagnosis (99 intervention, mean MMSE = 22.04, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = 20.95 to 23.13; 124 control, mean MMSE = 22.59, 95% CI = 21.58 to 23.6; p = 0.48). GP consultations with patients with suspected memory disorders increased in intervention versus control group (odds ratio = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.28, 1.54). There was no between-group difference in the proportions of patients referred to memory clinics (166, 2.5%; 220, 2.7%; p = .077 respectively). The study was limited as we do not know whether the additional patients presenting to GPs had objective as well as subjective memory problems and therefore should have been referred. In addition, we aimed to empower patients but did not do anything to change GP practice.
conclusionsOur intervention to access timely dementia diagnosis resulted in more patients presenting to GPs with memory problems, but no diagnoses increase. We are uncertain as to the reason for this and do not know whether empowering the public and targeting GPs would have resulted in a successful intervention. Future interventions should be targeted at both patients and GPs.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN19216873.
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.