Home › Research › Prevention trials
Improving Access to Cognitive Interventions for People With Dementia in Australian Community‐Based Settings
Stephanie Mulhall, Diane M Gibson, Wendy Ann Longley, Nathan Martin D'Cunha. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 2026-02-16
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Cognitive interventions, including cognitive stimulation therapy, cognitive rehabilitation and cognitive training, are increasingly recommended as key components of non-pharmacological post-diagnostic support for people with dementia. Cognitive interventions may help delay cognitive decline, enhance goal-directed functional abilities and improve quality of life. Despite inclusion in clinical guidelines and recommendations, guidance on the delivery of these interventions within Australian community settings remains limited and is underutilised. This article addresses a critical translation gap in cognitive interventions for people with dementia, synthesises the evidence through an Australian practice and policy lens, examines current uptake in community settings and identifies barriers, enablers and delivery models to inform implementation strategies. Community settings are defined as memory clinics, primary care, hospital outpatient services, allied health providers, community aged care and non-government providers. Current evidence indicates cognitive interventions have varying benefits across different outcomes, including cognitive function, social engagement, everyday functioning, quality of life and goal attainment. International practices related to implementation are explored, along with future directions for expanding access through technology, flexible delivery models, group-based approaches and integrating these interventions into existing care structures. Addressing the gap between recommendations and current practices requires building community awareness, improving access to professional education and training, and careful resource allocation. Cognitive interventions should be part of comprehensive rehabilitation and can be personalised to individual needs and goals. Expanding access and improving the availability of a range of cognitive interventions in community settings is crucial to ensure people with dementia receive best practice post-diagnostic support.
Key findings
- Current evidence indicates cognitive interventions have varying benefits across different outcomes, including cognitive function, social engagement, everyday functioning, quality of life and goal attainment.
- International practices related to implementation are explored, along with future directions for expanding access through technology, flexible delivery models, group-based approaches and integrating these interventions into existing care structures.
- Addressing the gap between recommendations and current practices requires building community awareness, improving access to professional education and training, and careful resource allocation.
- Cognitive interventions should be part of comprehensive rehabilitation and can be personalised to individual needs and goals.
- Expanding access and improving the availability of a range of cognitive interventions in community settings is crucial to ensure people with dementia receive best practice post-diagnostic support.
Why it matters
This article reviews evidence that cognitive interventions have varying benefits for people with dementia and identifies barriers to their use in Australian community settings. It aims to inform implementation strategies but does not test whether these interventions prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
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 journal's citation record, so that was left out: it earned 37 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Australasian Journal on Ageing) |
| 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 | 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 | 1 / 7 | Cited 3 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.5 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 14.2× 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 | 1 / 4 | Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Nathan Martin D'Cunha: h-index 25 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | University of Canberra: institution h-index 279 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 41699900) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1111/ajag.70140
- PubMed: 41699900
- Original source →
- Free full text: Australasian Journal on Ageing →
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
Mulhall, S., Gibson, D. M., Longley, W. A., & D'Cunha, N. M. (2026). Improving Access to Cognitive Interventions for People With Dementia in Australian Community‐Based Settings. Australasian Journal on Ageing. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.70140
Vancouver
Mulhall S, Gibson DM, Longley WA, D'Cunha NM. Improving Access to Cognitive Interventions for People With Dementia in Australian Community‐Based Settings. Australasian Journal on Ageing. 2026. doi:10.1111/ajag.70140. PMID: 41699900.
BibTeX
@article{mulhall2026-41699900,
author = {Mulhall, Stephanie and Gibson, Diane M and Longley, Wendy Ann and D'Cunha, Nathan Martin},
title = {{Improving Access to Cognitive Interventions for People With Dementia in Australian Community‐Based Settings}},
journal = {Australasian Journal on Ageing},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1111/ajag.70140},
pmid = {41699900},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.70140}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.