Home › Research › Caregiving
Cultural and linguistic adaptation of a personalised post-diagnostic dementia intervention for Bangladeshi families in the UK: an iterative adaptation study
Budgett J, Lang I, Sen A, Hussain M, Yilmaz M, Ogden M, Philips R, Banks S et al.. medRxiv, 2026-10-14
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Plain-language summary
People from UK South Asian communities experience barriers to accessing dementia care. Evidence suggests that evidence-based psychosocial dementia interventions can be successfully adapted for different cultural contexts, but further evidence is needed on how adaptations are developed and refined in practice. We aimed to adapt GRACE-family (Goal diRected, Accessible and Evidence-based Care), an evidence-based, manualised post-diagnostic dementia intervention, comprising 4-8 sessions for family carers and where possible, people with dementia, for Bengali-speaking communities. In a theory-informed process, a co-adaptation group encompassing lived, academic and clinical/professional experience developed consensus regarding which intervention functions were core. They then explored how adaptation might, while retaining these, account for cultural and linguistic contexts, informed by focus groups with memory service and Bengali community organisation staff (n=14). We developed a prototype adaptation, then piloted it with four Bangladeshi families supporting a person with dementia. Post-intervention, participants were asked about goal attainment, intervention acceptability, and qualitatively interviewed. Pilot data and a focus group with Sylheti-speaking family carers informed further refinements (n=6). Across data sources, two themes informed adaptation: (1) stigma, trust and community networks shaped access to dementia support; (2) flexible delivery was needed to respond to diverse language, communication and cultural needs. 3/4 pilot families completed the prototype intervention, which was in English as initial consultation cautioned against developing a written manual in a predominantly spoken language. Participants reported improvement on 7/8 personalised goals set, and all considered the intervention acceptable. Pilot delivery identified challenges using English-language materials during interpreter-mediated sessions. Iterative refinements added standard Bengali materials and spoken Sylheti audiovisual resources to broaden delivery options and facilitator training for culturally responsive and interpreter-mediated delivery. Our co-adaptation approach enabled stakeholders to advise from different, including experiential perspectives. It may inform future approaches to cultural and linguistically adaptations of psychological interventions for minoritised communities.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Budgett, J., Lang, I., Sen, A., Hussain, M., Yilmaz, M., Ogden, M., et al. (2026). Cultural and linguistic adaptation of a personalised post-diagnostic dementia intervention for Bangladeshi families in the UK: an iterative adaptation study. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.13.26365344
Vancouver
Budgett J, Lang I, Sen A, Hussain M, Yilmaz M, Ogden M, et al. Cultural and linguistic adaptation of a personalised post-diagnostic dementia intervention for Bangladeshi families in the UK: an iterative adaptation study. medRxiv. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.10.13.26365344.
BibTeX
@article{budgett2026-77693017,
author = {Budgett, J. and Lang, I. and Sen, A. and Hussain, M. and Yilmaz, M. and Ogden, M. and Philips, R. and Banks, S. and others},
title = {{Cultural and linguistic adaptation of a personalised post-diagnostic dementia intervention for Bangladeshi families in the UK: an iterative adaptation study}},
journal = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.13.26365344},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.13.26365344}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Evidence suggests that evidence-based psychosocial dementia interventions can be successfully adapted for different cultural contexts, but further evidence is needed on how adaptations are developed and refined in practice.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Participants14
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 27 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 17 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 27 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| 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 | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 14 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 17 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 17 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 27 out of 100. |
| Total | 27 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Caregiving from nearby years
Also tagged “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.