ArticleZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2026
["No shows" in dementia diagnostics: qualitative perspectives of patients and caregivers after a positive case finding by general practitioners].
Article in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe timely diagnostics of cognitive impairments and dementia syndromes are central to geriatric care. Memory clinics typically perform differential diagnostics following positive case findings in the general practitioner's practice; however, care pathways do not function smoothly, as shown by the "iCreate" project. Of 95 patients with positive case findings only 68 utilized the referral to the memory clinic; 27 were no shows. While barriers before the first doctor's visit are well-researched, analysis of the transition between primary and specialist care settings is lacking. The aim was to understand why further differential diagnostics after positive case findings were not pursued and to derive recommendations for action.
methodQualitative design with semi-structured interviews (n = 9) and telephone surveys (n = 15) of 24 of the 27 no shows or relatives from "iCreate". Software-assisted evaluation using qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker.
resultsAffected individuals experience a care gap with uncertainties and an individual interplay of barriers on three levels: a) psychosocial: fear of loss of autonomy/stigma, denial/ambivalence, desire/right not to know; b) structural and organizational: transport/appointment/coordination problems and c) care-related and process-related: unclear benefits, lack of follow-up options.
conclusionCase finding programs require standardized communication pathways with written summaries (working diagnosis, next steps, contact persons). Stepwise shared decision-making supported by dementia care managers could reduce the perceived barriers and drop-outs while closing care gaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42573737What 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.