ArticleDementia (London, England)2022
A suite of evaluation resources for Dementia Friendly Communities: Development and guidance for use.
Article in Dementia (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discussing methodological gaps in psychosocial intervention research for dementia: an opinion article from the INTERDEM Methodology Taskforce guided by the MRC framework.Frontiers in dementia · 2024Article
- Variation in Implementing Dementia-Friendly Community Initiatives: Advancing Theory for Social Change.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Organizational Characteristics of Senior Centers and Engagement in Dementia-Friendly Communities.Innovation in aging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the context of a growing number of dementia friendly communities (DFCs) globally, a need remains for robust evaluation, and for tools to capture relevant evidence. This paper reports the development of a suite of evaluation resources for DFCs through a national study in England.
methodsFieldwork took place in six diverse case study sites across England. A mixed methods design was adopted that entailed documentary analysis, focus groups, interviews, observations, and a survey. Participants were people affected by dementia and practice-based stakeholders. A national stakeholder workshop was held to obtain input beyond the research sites. A workshop at the end of the study served to check the resonance of the findings and emerging outputs with stakeholders from the case study DFCs.
resultsThe study had three key outputs for the evaluation of DFCs: First, an evaluation framework that highlights thematic areas to be considered in evaluating DFCs. Second, a Theory of Change that presents inputs into a DFC and short, medium and longer term outcomes. Third, a matrix for assessing a DFC's degree of maturity, which enables a sense of the kinds of outcomes a DFC might realistically aspire to. These three outputs form a suite of interlinking and complementary evaluation resources for DFCs.
conclusionsThe study has contributed evidence-based resources for monitoring and evaluation that complement existing frameworks. They can be applied to arrive at a detailed assessment of how well a DFC works for people affected by dementia, and at insights into the underlying factors that can guide future policy and practice.
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.