ArticlePloS one2026
Service-level and practitioner-level recommendations for better care of people with dementia who live alone and have no informal caregivers.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextA substantial proportion of people with dementia live alone without informal caregivers, yet services often assume family involvement, increasing risks of unmet need and adverse outcomes.
objectiveThis study aimed to generate service-level and practitioner-level recommendations to best support people with dementia who live alone and lack informal caregivers.
methodsA qualitative phenomenological co-design workshop was conducted with seven practitioners from statutory, voluntary, and private-sector roles across England. Prompts informed by earlier qualitative work were used as a template to stimulate reflection and develop recommendations for practice through inductive thematic analysis and input from a study advisory group including people with lived experience of dementia.
findingsPractitioners recommended some service-level and practitioner-level recommendations. Service-level recommendations included flexible care pathways and sufficient time to build rapport in the absence of informal support. Practitioner-level recommendations, approaching the client with personability, humanity, warmth, respect, and humility, and adopting a sensitive yet honest communication, were essential for meaningful engagement and supporting autonomy. Curiosity and creativity helped practitioners understand behavioural motivations and tailor interventions. Experience underpinned all these competencies, with supervision and shadowing seen as vital for developing relational skills. LIMITATIONS: The study sample was small, although it included a diverse range of practitioner backgrounds. No people living with dementia participated directly in the study, although people with lived experience of dementia were involved in the study advisory group. IMPLICATIONS: High-quality support for people with dementia who live alone requires service structures that enable good practice from practitioners. Embedding flexibility, time investment, and relational practice within dementia services is essential to enable effective, person-centred care, particularly where formal systems must compensate for the absence of informal caregivers. These prerequisites are critical conditions to ensure equitable support for people with dementia who live alone.
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.