ArticleBMJ open2025
Intersectional research on dementia care for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds: a protocol for a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intersectional research on dementia care for post-migrants and ethnic minority groups: a scoping review.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Pooled it
- Challenges when measuring person-centred dementia care in nursing homes: a discussion paper.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe specific preferences that shape the daily lives of people with dementia serve as the basis for the concept of person-centred care. However, information on the complex experiences of culturally and linguistically diverse people with dementia (CALDPwD), which determine their multifaceted preferences, is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this scoping review is to identify the range, extent and nature of evidence available in peer-reviewed and grey literature examining how the multilayered experiences of CALDPwD influence everyday living preferences.
methodsWe aim to conduct a scoping review to explore the multilayered experiences of CALDPwD and the intersectional determinants of their everyday living preferences. Using PubMed, MEDLINE (via Ovid for precision and controlled searching), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Scopus and the Cochrane Library, as well as grey literature, we will systematically search for literature in English, German and Turkish without any publication date restrictions. The titles/abstracts and full texts of the identified records will be independently screened by two reviewers. Data extraction will be performed by one researcher and verified by another. All the authors will discuss the conflicts. We will analyse the identified intersectional determinants of preferences using inductive content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical concerns related to conducting this study. We will share our findings with nursing care practitioners. The results will be presented at conferences and disseminated through peer-reviewed articles and practical publications. DISCUSSION: The findings of the study will address the important gaps in knowledge on the complex intersecting factors that influence the preferences of CALDPwD. A key strength of this study is its comprehensive search strategy, which includes multiple databases and citation tracking to capture diverse, intersectional perspectives of CALDPwD. However, excluding the studies focused on caregiver's burden may limit insights into how care systems shape the needs and expectations of this population.
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.