Home › Research › Risk factors
From Dementia Prevention Literacy to Preventive Agency: A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Translating Knowledge into Action
Carey P.. Preprints.org, 2026-10-20
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Plain-language summary
Dementia prevention education increasingly seeks to translate evidence about modifiable risk factors into meaningful public engagement and preventive action. However, access to information and an understanding of prevention recommendations do not necessarily enable individuals to act on them. This conceptual paper proposes dementia preventive agency as a candidate construct for examining the relationship between prevention knowledge and the capacity to undertake informed, feasible and contextually meaningful action.Building on scholarship concerning dementia prevention literacy, preventive capacity, personal relevance, affective appraisal and knowledge translation, the paper examines whether preventive agency offers explanatory value beyond existing accounts of health literacy, behavioural readiness and self-efficacy. It provisionally conceptualises preventive agency as the situated capacity, exercised alone or with others, to interpret prevention evidence, evaluate its personal significance, exercise informed choice and identify actions that are achievable within one’s circumstances. The paper distinguishes this construct from knowledge, motivation, intention and behaviour, and considers how personal, social and structural contexts enable or constrain its expression.Rather than presenting preventive agency as an established or empirically validated theory, the paper develops six provisional propositions, each paired with the evidence that would weaken it, identifies which of them would discriminate preventive agency from existing constructs rather than merely be consistent with it, and proposes a staged research agenda spanning qualitative exploration, realist evaluation, measurement development and intervention testing. The contribution is a testable conceptual proposal intended to invite scrutiny, refinement and empirical assessment by researchers in dementia prevention, health education and public health. To support boundary-setting and testing, the paper compares preventive agency with its closest frameworks (Table 1), reports a first targeted literature search (Appendix 3), presents a provisional eight-item draft measure (DPA-8), and outlines its validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, together with a pre-specified pilot protocol (Appendix 4). The problem of translating prevention knowledge into action is not new and is not claimed as a contribution. No empirical data are reported.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Carey, P. (2026). From Dementia Prevention Literacy to Preventive Agency: A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Translating Knowledge into Action. Preprints.org. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202610.1965.v1
Vancouver
Carey P. From Dementia Prevention Literacy to Preventive Agency: A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Translating Knowledge into Action. Preprints.org. 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202610.1965.v1.
BibTeX
@article{carey2026-7839c6ff,
author = {Carey, P.},
title = {{From Dementia Prevention Literacy to Preventive Agency: A Proposed Theoretical Framework for Translating Knowledge into Action}},
journal = {Preprints.org},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.20944/preprints202610.1965.v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202610.1965.v1}
}
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
- It provisionally conceptualises preventive agency as the situated capacity, exercised alone or with others, to interpret prevention evidence, evaluate its personal significance, exercise informed choice and identify actions that are achievable within one’s circumstances.
- The paper distinguishes this construct from knowledge, motivation, intention and behaviour, and considers how personal, social and structural contexts enable or constrain its expression.Rather than presenting preventive agency as an established or empirically validated theory, the paper develops six provisional propositions, each paired with the evidence that would weaken it, identifies which of them would discriminate preventive agency from existing constructs rather than merely be consistent with it, and proposes a staged research agenda spanning qualitative exploration, realist evaluation, measurement development and intervention testing.
- The contribution is a testable conceptual proposal intended to invite scrutiny, refinement and empirical assessment by researchers in dementia prevention, health education and public health.
- To support boundary-setting and testing, the paper compares preventive agency with its closest frameworks (Table 1), reports a first targeted literature search (Appendix 3), presents a provisional eight-item draft measure (DPA-8), and outlines its validation through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, together with a pre-specified pilot protocol (Appendix 4).
- The problem of translating prevention knowledge into action is not new and is not claimed as a contribution.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Preprints.org) |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 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 Risk factors from nearby years
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.