Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background This paper analyses the costs and benefits of commissioning memory services for early diagnosis and intervention for dementia. Method A model was developed to examine potential public and private savings associated with delayed admissions to care homes in England as a result of the commissioning of memory services. Findings The new services would cost around pound sterling 220 million extra per year nationally in England. The estimated savings if 10% of care home admissions were prevented would by year 10 be around pound sterling 120 million in public expenditure (social care) and pound sterling 125 million in private expenditure (service users and their families), a total of pound sterling 245 million. Under a 20% reduction, the annual cost would within around 6 years be offset by the savings to public funds alone. In 10 years all people with dementia will have had the chance to be seen by the new services. A gain of between 0.01 and 0.02 QALYs per person year would be sufficient to render the service cost-effective (in terms of positive net present value). These relatively small improvements seem very likely to be achievable. Interpretation These analyses suggest that the service need only achieve a modest increase in average quality of life of people with dementia, plus a 10% diversion of people with dementia from residential care, to be cost-effective. The net increase in public expenditure would then, on the assumptions discussed and from a societal perspective, be justified by the expected benefits. This modelling presents for debate support for the development of nationwide services for the early identification and treatment of dementia in terms of quality of life and overall cost-effectiveness.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19206079)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 21 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total 36 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Banerjee, S., & Wittenberg, R. (2009). Clinical and cost effectiveness of services for early diagnosis and intervention in dementia. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2191

Vancouver

Banerjee S, Wittenberg R. Clinical and cost effectiveness of services for early diagnosis and intervention in dementia. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2009. doi:10.1002/gps.2191. PMID: 19206079.

BibTeX

@article{banerjee2009-19206079,
  author  = {Banerjee, S. and Wittenberg, R.},
  title   = {{Clinical and cost effectiveness of services for early diagnosis and intervention in dementia}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1002/gps.2191},
  pmid    = {19206079},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2191}
}

Related studies in Costs and economics

Also tagged “costs”

265 studies in the library carry the topic tag “costs”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 265 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →