Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41943928›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2026

Communicating the risk of psychiatric in-patient or enhanced community care in dementia.

Maja Swirska, Sabina London, Emma Wolverson, Benjamin R Underwood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Maja SwirskaDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/013meh722University of Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-3083-7669
Sabina LondonDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/013meh722University of Cambridge, UK.
Emma WolversonGeller Institute of Aging and Memory, University of West London, UK.
Benjamin R UnderwoodDepartment of Psychiatry, https://ror.org/013meh722University of Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-9487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAround 10% of people living with dementia (PLWD) will experience a deterioration in their condition that will require urgent ('crisis') community support or an in-patient psychiatric admission. We have previously shown that people at high risk of a crisis event can be identified at the point of diagnosis. How the idea that someone is at increased risk of experiencing a crisis event in their care is best communicated is not known. Here, we describe the analysis of interviews with clinicians and PLWD, to understand their perspective and the co-production of tools designed to support risk communication.

aimsTo explore multistakeholder perspectives (healthcare professionals, carers, PLWD;

methodThis pilot study used an experience-based, co-design approach. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse transcripts, leading to co-development of draft educational materials.

resultsWe identified five themes that inform how risk should be communicated. Participants underlined the importance of timing, setting and follow-up appointments. Digital tools were considered essential, but they were not seen as a substitute to face-to-face appointments. Individual preferences varied, highlighting the need for patient-centred communication. The findings led to the co-development of clinician guidelines and educational materials.

conclusionsRisk communication in dementia is complex and must be personalised to be most effective. Our findings may have relevance for the communication of other areas of risk in dementia beyond risk of care crises.

Indexed as

DementiaPPIEqualitativerisk communication

Identifiers

PMID41943928
PMCPMC13107325

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.