Home › Research › Risk factors
Implementing a Dementia‐Friendly Communities programme across local authorities in the East of England
Greg Windle. Alzheimer s & Dementia, 2024-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Abstract There are many types of Dementia‐Friendly Communities (DFCs), and communities define and implement them in different ways. Toolkits from the World Health Organisation and Dementia Friendly America have defined specific goals for DFCs, and in 2013, Alzheimer’s Society created a national recognition programme for UK DFCs to respond to the diversity of interpretations. Key elements of the programme included People (awareness and training), Process (support and signposting) and Place (physical support and community). The complex implementation of DFCs in diverse regions has not been extensively studied, and the Alzheimer’s Society DFC accreditation programme for England ended in 2023. In order to keep continuity, regional governments in England are developing their own frameworks for implementing DFCs. County‐level local governments have convened a number of district councils to agree to continue with a DFC scheme in 2024 as a key part of the delivery of the county‐level dementia strategy for 2023 through 2028. This dementia strategy covers a broad range of community concerns, but it does not consider detailed implementation questions. A task force made up of local government officials, clinical commissioning group representatives, admiral nursing representatives, care home leaders and voluntary organisation heads is developing and implementing the new DFC programme. The continued DFC programme takes a federal structure, with a county‐wide set of criteria for defining levels of dementia‐friendly services in the community. Each local government within the county then has flexibility to tailor the criteria to their own population, business and service landscape. As DFCs in the East of England adjust to this new administrative framework, we are using an evaluation and implementation framework to measure individual and community impact and describe implementation consideration for this method of DFC administration. The main focus of implementation science has been in clinical practice, but there is a growing focus on the importance of evidence‐based public policies and their implementation. In detailing the implementation of this innovative community care programme, we consider implementation domains of Contextual Factors, Implementation Strategies, Service and Patient Outcomes, Implementation Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement.
Key findings
- The continued DFC programme takes a federal structure, with a county‐wide set of criteria for defining levels of dementia‐friendly services in the community.
- Each local government within the county then has flexibility to tailor the criteria to their own population, business and service landscape.
- As DFCs in the East of England adjust to this new administrative framework, we are using an evaluation and implementation framework to measure individual and community impact and describe implementation consideration for this method of DFC administration.
- The main focus of implementation science has been in clinical practice, but there is a growing focus on the importance of evidence‐based public policies and their implementation.
- In detailing the implementation of this innovative community care programme, we consider implementation domains of Contextual Factors, Implementation Strategies, Service and Patient Outcomes, Implementation Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Stakeholder Involvement and Engagement and Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement.
Why it matters
This describes how local governments in the East of England are setting up a Dementia-Friendly Communities programme after the national accreditation scheme ended. It is about community awareness, support and services, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 28/100
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 senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 27 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 28 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer s & Dementia) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Alzheimer s & Dementia: journal h-index 228 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 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 | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Greg Windle holds only 5 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | University of Hertfordshire: institution h-index 382 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 27 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 28 out of 100. |
| Total | 28 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
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
Windle, G. (2024). Implementing a Dementia‐Friendly Communities programme across local authorities in the East of England. Alzheimer s & Dementia. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.088803
Vancouver
Windle G. Implementing a Dementia‐Friendly Communities programme across local authorities in the East of England. Alzheimer s & Dementia. 2024. doi:10.1002/alz.088803.
BibTeX
@article{windle2024-f3b4b83e,
author = {Windle, Greg},
title = {{Implementing a Dementia‐Friendly Communities programme across local authorities in the East of England}},
journal = {Alzheimer s \& Dementia},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1002/alz.088803},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.088803}
}