Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36341273›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Intermediate care in caring for dementia, the point of view of general practitioners: A key informant survey across Europe.

Clarisse Dibao-Dina, Caroline Oger, Tony Foley, Péter Torzsa, Vanja Lazic, Sanda Kreitmayer Peštiae, Limor Adler, Ana Kareli, Christian Mallen, Cindy Heaster and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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

20 authors at 16 institutions in 16 countries.

Clarisse Dibao-DinaDepartment of General Practice, University of Tours, Tours, France.
Caroline OgerDepartment of General Practice, University of Tours, Tours, France.
Tony FoleyDepartment of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Péter TorzsaDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Vanja LazicDom Zdravlja Zagreb-Centar, Zagreb, Croatia.
Sanda Kreitmayer PeštiaeJZNU Dom Zdravlja "Dr. Mustafa Šehoviæ", Department of General/Family Medicine, Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Limor AdlerSackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Ana KareliGeorgian Family Medicine Association, Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Christian MallenPrimary, Community and Social Care, Keele University, Keele, United Kingdom.
Cindy HeasterDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Gindrovel DumitraRomanian National Society of Family Medicine, Bucharest, Romania.
Donata KurpasDepartment of Family Medicine, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland.
Rita ViegasDepartment of Family Medicine, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal.
Stéphanie GiezendannerCentre for Primary Health Care, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Victoria TkachenkoDepartment of Family Medicine, Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Jan De LepeleireDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, General Practice, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Rosario FalangaDepartment of Primary Care, Azienda Sanitaria Friuli Occidentale, Pordenone, Italy.
Aristea MissiouResearch Unit for General Medicine and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Aisling JenningsDepartment of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Ferdinando PetrazzuoliDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden.
Université de Tours · FRUniversity College Cork · IEAzienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Ferrara · ITKeele University · GBKU Leuven · BELund University · SERiga Stradiņš University · LVSemmelweis University · HUShupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine · UATbilisi State Medical University · GETel Aviv University · ILUniversidade Nova de Lisboa · PTUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Ioannina · GRUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova · ROWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Intermediate care is often defined as healthcare occurring somewhere between traditional primary (community) and secondary (hospital) care settings. High quality intermediate care is important in dementia, may prevent caregiver burnout and also lead to optimal care for people with dementia. However, very little is known about the point of intermediate care for persons with dementia in Europe. Research questions: What intermediate care services exist and how are they utilized in the care of people with dementia in Europe? Objective: This study aims at describing the point of view of General Practitioners on intermediate care services for people with dementia across Europe. Methods: Key informant survey was sent to GPs via a self-developed questionnaire with space for open ended comments. 16 European countries participated to this cross-sectional mixed method study. Given the volunteer nature of the study, no minimum sample size requirements were applied to participation. Convenience sampling technique was used to address variations due to regional variations and regulations within the same country. Descriptive analyses of all intermediate care facilities groups by countries were performed. Qualitative analyses approach was used for the optional-free text to exemplify and/or complete the reasons contained in the closed response categories. Results: The questionnaire was sent to 16 European countries. 583 questionnaires were analyzed. The responding physicians were 48 (± 11) years old on average and they had been in practice for an average of 18 (+ /11) years. The types of intermediate care considered were integrated at-home services, respite and relief services, day care centers and nursing homes. Their availability was considered very inhomogeneous by the majority of respondents. The main benefits of intermediate care cited were better medical care for the patient (78%), better quality of life for the caregiver (67%), prevention of the caregiver burden (73%) and a break for the caregiver (59%). The reported difficulties were: accessing these facilities due to limited financial support (76%) and cumbersome administrative procedures (67%). Many other facets of our findings were captured in the qualitative themes that emerged. Conclusion: Intermediate care in Europe is diverse and heterogeneous. Major concerns of GPs are about the cost issues and the cumbersome administrative procedures to access them.

Indexed as

care givercaregiver supportdementiaintermediate careprimary care

Identifiers

PMID36341273
PMCPMC9627031
OpenAlexW4306843208

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.