Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40575065›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Scoping review of dementia primary prevention policies in England: do they balance reach and agency?

Sebastian Walsh, Jack M Birch, Richard Merrick, Lindsay Wallace, Isla Kuhn, Linda Clare, Oliver T Mytton, Louise Lafortune, Wendy J Wills, Carol E Brayne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 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. 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

10 authors.

Sebastian WalshCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-5006
Jack M BirchNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6292-1647
Richard MerrickCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1968-6436
Lindsay WallaceDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Isla KuhnSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2879-4020
Linda ClareUniversity of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3989-5318
Oliver T MyttonUniversity College London, London, UK.
Louise LafortuneCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Wendy J WillsUniversity of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Carol E BrayneCambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To ascertain the balance of dementia risk reduction policies in England, considering their reach (population-wide vs targeted at specific individuals) and agency (the level of resource required to benefit from the intervention). Design: Scoping review. Data sources: Academic databases (Medline, the Health Management Information Consortium and Overton) and the webpages of relevant national and local government agencies and associated bodies (including: the UK Government, the UK Health Security Agency, National Health Service England, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and local governments and healthcare organisations from the East of England region) were searched. Eligibility criteria: Any written documents or service webpages from, or endorsed by, governmental organisations or arms-length bodies which describe, recommend or evaluate current or formally proposed interventions for the reduction or control of one or more modifiable risk factors for dementia were included. Policies targeted at people with existing cognitive impairment and/or dementia were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis: Data on policy description, reach and agency were extracted from identified dementia primary prevention policy documents by one author. Policies common to several organisations were grouped, and then synthesised across risk factor group and by tier of government. The numerical balance of policies (between axes of reach and agency) was compared across risk factor group and current policy/proposed status. Results: From a total of 8210 hits, 366 policy documents were included. From these, 79 distinct policies were identified, targeted at dementia (n=3), cardiovascular health (n=23), smoking and alcohol (n=17), depression and social isolation (n=12), air pollution (n=10), low formal education (n=9), hearing impairment (n=3) and traumatic brain injury (n=2). Overall, 67.1% (53/79) of current policies had population-reach, 53.2% (42/79) were considered low-agency and 39.2% (31/79) were both population-reach and low-agency. Conclusions: There is currently a policy balance between population-reach and targeted-reach, and high-agency and low-agency interventions, for dementia risk reduction in England. However, a predominance of population-reach, low-agency interventions may be required to match the scale of the challenge and improve equity.

Indexed as

Mental HealthPreventive MedicinePrimary PreventionPublic HealthScoping Review

Identifiers

PMID40575065
PMCPMC12198788

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.