Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40595031›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2025

Dementia Education and Training for the Multidisciplinary Student Healthcare Workforce: A Systematic Review.

Malvika Muralidhar, Saskia Delray, Claudia Cooper, Sedigheh Zabihi, Sube Banerjee, Clarissa Giebel, Karen Harrison Dening, Yvonne Birks, Charlotte Kenten, Madeleine Walpert

Abstract readSystematic Review
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Malvika MuralidharCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4925-8909
Saskia DelrayCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Claudia CooperCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2777-7616
Sedigheh ZabihiCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2770-0862
Sube BanerjeeFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Clarissa GiebelDepartment of Primary Care & Mental Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0746-0566
Karen Harrison DeningDementia UK, London, UK.
Yvonne BirksSchool for Business and Society, University of York, York, UK.
Charlotte KentenCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Madeleine WalpertDementia UK, London, UK.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR206110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review research evidence on the effectiveness of dementia education and training for health and social care students.

methodsWe searched electronic databases for primary research studies (published between 2015 and 2024), evaluating dementia training for health and social care students. We assessed risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, prioritising studies scoring 4+ (higher quality) that reported significant findings on primary outcomes from controlled intervention trials. We reported outcomes using Kirkpatrick's framework. We consulted professional stakeholders in a focus group regarding how findings might inform practice.

results17/35 included studies were rated 4+ on the MMAT; only one met our criteria for priority evidence. An experiential programme for medical students, 'Time for Dementia', which combined skill-learning and reflective sessions with visits to people with dementia, was found to improve Kirkpatrick Level 2 (learning) outcomes, attitudes and knowledge over 2 years of participation; this was supported from findings from qualitative studies. Asynchronous, self-directed learning did not improve learning outcomes, relative to standard training. Though almost all training programmes incorporated lived experience, no patient reported outcomes were used to evaluate the impact of training. Nine focus group attendees agreed that the evidence reflected their experiences that consistent support, combined with skills-based and reflective sessions, optimised student learning from initial patient-focused encounters.

conclusionsEffective interventions increased confidence and enjoyment of dementia care encounters, and increased interest in careers in dementia specialities. Mandating evidence-based dementia skills programmes across specialities could ensure that students learn the skills and competencies required to be part of an effective future workforce and drive important improvements in care quality. Evidence based approaches to enhancing dementia education in training could include experiential learning modules in early years of medical school training and allied health and care professional training, using evidence-based approaches to teach communication skills and other essential dementia care skills within clinical placements, and providing dedicated supervision to support their implementation. Future research could usefully consider patient perspectives in determining the impact of educational programmes.

Indexed as

DementiaHealth PersonnelHumansdementiahealthcarepolicystudentstraining

Identifiers

PMID40595031
PMCPMC12214054

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.