↓ Skip to main content

Attitudes and preferences towards screening for dementia: a systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Attitudes and preferences towards screening for dementia: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0064-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Martin, Sarah Kelly, Ayesha Khan, Sarah Cullum, Tom Dening, Greta Rait, Chris Fox, Cornelius Katona, Theodore Cosco, Carol Brayne, Louise Lafortune

Abstract

Population screening might provide a mechanism to enable early detection of dementia. Yet the potential benefits, harms or acceptability of such a large-scale intervention are not well understood. This research aims to examine the attitudes and preferences of the general public, health care professionals, people with dementia and their carers towards population screening for dementia. A systematic review of the international literature was undertaken. A search of fifteen bibliographic databases was conducted (up to 12 July 2012; no language restriction) using terms related to dementia, screening, specific screening tools, case finding, and attitudes and preferences; genetic screening and biomarkers were excluded. All study designs were included except opinion-based papers. Included papers were doubly quality assessed and thematically analysed using NVivo. 29,910 papers were identified of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. We identified seventeen themes relating to the 3 phases of the screening process (pre-, in- and post-screen) - none emerged as more of a facilitator than a barrier to the acceptance of dementia screening. Seven themes emerged in relation to the patient, carer and general population: existing health state; lifestyle and life view; awareness of dementia; role of clinician; communication; benefit; and role of the family. Ten themes emerged in relation to the clinician and healthcare professional: patient's existing health and comorbidities; awareness of dementia; confidence; duration of patient contact; suitability of screening tool; cost; disclosure; time; treatment and prognosis; and stigma. As for all screening programmes, screening for dementia raises complex issues around preference and choice for clinicians and the public, and it is unclear what specific factors promote or reduce screening acceptance the most. Overall, the level of evidence is low, few large scale studies have been undertaken and none were conducted in representative samples, all affecting the generalizability of identified themes across healthcare contexts. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that population screening for dementia may not be acceptable to either the general public or health care professionals, and highlight where focused efforts are needed to gain insights into dementia specific issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 18%
Researcher 26 16%
Student > Master 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 25%
Psychology 29 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 7%
Social Sciences 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 43 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,584,873
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#294
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,395
of 260,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#5
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.