Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30581491›Full record

ReviewJournal of public mental health2018

Reviewing challenges and gaps in European and global dementia policy.

Toni Wright, Stephen O'Connor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of public mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

2 authors.

Toni WrightEngland Centre for Practice Development, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK.
Stephen O'ConnorEngland Centre for Practice Development, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this paper is to scope out European and global policy documents focused on dementia with the purpose of providing a synthesis of the challenges the phenomenon poses and the gaps evident. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: An adapted PESTEL framework as a data extraction tool resulted in an analysis of the political, economic, social, technological, environmental, organisational, educational and research aspects of dementia policy.

findingsPolicy documents showed variability of dementia strategy, plan and programme development. All documents recognised rapidly growing ageing populations, and increasing numbers of people living with dementia. Dementia as a public health priority is inconsistent in growth. Global policy documents stress the impact of dementia will be felt most by low- and middle-income countries. Main themes were: a need to raise awareness of dementia and action to reduce stigma around it, the need for early diagnosis and preventative person-centred approaches with integrated care, fiscal investment, further research, training and education for workforces, increased involvement of and support for people living with dementia and care and support close to home. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: By identifying current dementia challenges and policy gap implications this analysis urges engagement with broader frames of reference as potential for enabling bolder and radically better dementia care models. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper offers a review of present global and European dementia policy, outlining the potential implications for the most marginalised in society if it fails to be critical of its own underpinning assumptions.

Indexed as

Dementia policyInternational perspectivesMarginalized peoplesPublic health priorities

Identifiers

PMID30581491
PMCPMC6290892

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.