Home › Research › Disparities
Dementia Knowledge and Perceived Competence in Dementia Care among Healthcare Workers in South Africa
Dlamini MA, Nomatshila SC.. F1000Res, 2026-07-03
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background: The rapidly aging global population, the prevalence of dementia is rising, placing an increasing burden on healthcare systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of dementia care, yet their knowledge and perceived competence in this area are often underexplored. Objective This study aimed to assess the capacity of healthcare workers for dementia screening, and management at selected health facilities in OR Tambo district of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Methods A quantitative study was conducted with 425 HCWs from various healthcare facilities. Data were collected using a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool (DKAT-2), and the Sense of Competence in Dementia Care Staff (SCIDS) scale. Descriptive statistics, item-level analysis, and bivariate analyses (Chi-square and Fisher’s Exact tests) were performed to examine the associations between participant characteristics and competence levels. Results Most participants were female (66.8%) and nurses (56.2%). While 63.8% of HCWs demonstrated moderate dementia knowledge, only 0.9% achieved good knowledge, and 35.3% had poor knowledge. Item-level analysis revealed a strong understanding of basic dementia concepts but significant gaps in knowledge about aetiology, differential diagnosis, and late-stage clinical features. Regarding perceived competence, 65.9% reported moderate competence and 34.1% reported high competence. High-competence HCWs consistently scored higher on all SCIDS items, particularly in behavioural management and person-centred care. Facility type was significantly associated with competence level (p = 0.002), with a larger proportion of HCWs in hospitals reporting high competence (64.1%) compared to those in clinics (25.5%) and community health centres (10.3%). Conclusion This study reveals a critical disconnect between moderate dementia knowledge and the application of this knowledge into perceived clinical competence. The pervasive knowledge gaps and the influence of the practice environment highlight the urgent need for targeted, context-specific training programs to equip HCWs with the practical skills required for high-quality dementia care.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dlamini, M. A., & Nomatshila, S. C. (2026). Dementia Knowledge and Perceived Competence in Dementia Care among Healthcare Workers in South Africa. F1000Res. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181872.1
Vancouver
Dlamini MA, Nomatshila SC. Dementia Knowledge and Perceived Competence in Dementia Care among Healthcare Workers in South Africa. F1000Res. 2026. doi:10.12688/f1000research.181872.1.
BibTeX
@article{dlamini2026-a4975b93,
author = {Dlamini, M. A. and Nomatshila, S. C.},
title = {{Dementia Knowledge and Perceived Competence in Dementia Care among Healthcare Workers in South Africa}},
journal = {F1000Res},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.12688/f1000research.181872.1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181872.1}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results Most participants were female (66.8%) and nurses (56.2%).
- While 63.8% of HCWs demonstrated moderate dementia knowledge, only 0.9% achieved good knowledge, and 35.3% had poor knowledge.
- Item-level analysis revealed a strong understanding of basic dementia concepts but significant gaps in knowledge about aetiology, differential diagnosis, and late-stage clinical features.
- Facility type was significantly associated with competence level (p = 0.002), with a larger proportion of HCWs in hospitals reporting high competence (64.1%) compared to those in clinics (25.5%) and community health centres (10.3%).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Effect size66.8%; 56.2%; 63.8%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (F1000Res) |
| 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 | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.