Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Plain-language summary
Background The issue of diagnostic disclosure in dementia has been debated extensively in professional journals, but empirical data concerning disclosure in dementia has not previously been systematically reviewed. Objective To review empirical data regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia. Methods Five electronic databases were searched up to September 2003 (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science). Additional references were identified through hand searches of selected journals and bibliographies of relevant articles and books. The title and abstract of each identified paper were reviewed independently by two reviewers against pre-determined inclusion criteria: original data about disclosure were presented and the paper was in English. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion until consensus was reached. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using a structured abstraction form. Data quality were not formally assessed although each study was critically reviewed in terms of methodology, sampling criteria, response rates and appropriateness of analysis. Results Fifty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria for detailed review. Many of the studies had methodological shortcomings. The studies reported wide variability in all areas of beliefs and attitudes to diagnostic disclosure and reported practice. Studies of the impact of disclosure indicate both negative and positive consequences of diagnostic disclosure for people with dementia and their carers. Conclusions Existing evidence regarding diagnostic disclosure in dementia is both inconsistent and limited with the perspectives of people with dementia being largely neglected. This state of knowledge seems at variance with current guidance about disclosure.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bamford, C., Lamont, S., Eccles, M., Robinson, L., May, C., & Bond, J. (2004). Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1050
Vancouver
Bamford C, Lamont S, Eccles M, Robinson L, May C, Bond J. Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2004. doi:10.1002/gps.1050. PMID: 14758581.
BibTeX
@article{bamford2004-14758581,
author = {Bamford, C. and Lamont, S. and Eccles, M. and Robinson, L. and May, C. and Bond, J.},
title = {{Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review}},
journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
year = {2004},
doi = {10.1002/gps.1050},
pmid = {14758581},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1050}
}
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 Fifty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria for detailed review.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| 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 | 2004 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 14758581) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Caregiving from nearby years
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.