Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39978789›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2025

Attitudes and Preferences Towards Screening for Dementia From the Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals: An Updated Systematic Review.

Ríona Mc Ardle, Abigail Dsouza, Alexander Hagan, Amani Al-Oraibi, Matilda Hanjari, Blossom C M Stephan, Carol Brayne, Louise Lafortune, Manpreet Bains, Nadeem Qureshi and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Inequities in Dementia Diagnosis: Evidence From the ELSI-Brazil Study.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  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

11 authors.

Ríona Mc ArdleTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7959-3563
Abigail DsouzaPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Tyne, UK.
Alexander HaganPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Tyne, UK.
Amani Al-OraibiPRISM Research Group, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Matilda HanjariPRISM Research Group, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Blossom C M StephanDementia Centre of Excellence, EnAble Institute, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.
Carol BrayneCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.
Louise LafortuneCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.
Manpreet BainsPRISM Research Group, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Nadeem QureshiPRISM Research Group, Lifespan and Population Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Louise RobinsonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0209-2503

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApproximately 55 million people are living with dementia globally. Global policies have suggested that screening for dementia in asymptomatic populations may support risk-reduction approaches to stem the rising numbers of people with the condition. A previous systematic review of literature up to 2012 indicated that healthcare professionals negatively view dementia screening; however, the research and clinical landscape has made significant advances in the last decade. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to re-examine the attitudes and preferences of healthcare professionals since 2012 regarding primary and community care-based dementia screening.

methodsThis review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024531455) and followed PRISMA guidelines. Key terms relevant to the aim were input into six databases, and articles between 2012 and 2024 were considered. Titles, abstracts and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers. Articles were eligible for inclusion if peer-reviewed, written in English, considered primary or community care-based dementia screening and included healthcare perspectives from either quantitative or qualitative methods.

resultsFrom 18,732 identified titles, 19 articles were included in this review. Seventeen studies presented perspectives from primary care practitioners. Key findings suggest that healthcare professionals have mixed views regarding their willingness to conduct dementia screening, although limited studies suggest an interest in engaging in dementia risk reduction. Common influences on perspectives included knowledge, skills and training; resource provision; access to a dedicated screening service and referral pathways; and stigma.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that healthcare professionals' perspectives and resource are not aligned with international policies promoting dementia screening. When considering implementing evidence-based dementia screening in the future, a dedicated screening service is recommended.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelDementiaHealth PersonnelMass ScreeningHumansPrimary Health CareAlzheimer's diseaseattitudescommunity health servicesdementiamental status and dementia testspreferencesprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID39978789
PMCPMC11842158

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.