Home › Research › End-of-life care
Person-Centredness in Dementia Diagnosis & Detection: A Scoping Review
Guo MY, Diaz A, Gove D, Jessen F, Khoury CP, Wiley RE, El-Hayek YH.. Research Square, 2026-07-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
We included 23 studies with qualitative (73.9%) or quantitative/mixed-methods (26.1%) designs. Conceptualizations varied: 52.2% cited established theory-driven frameworks, while 47.8% described person-centredness primarily in practical clinical terms. Most studies addressed assessment (73.9%) and disclosure (60.9%), whereas fewer examined pre-diagnostic detection and screening (43.5%) or post-diagnostic support (34.8%). Mapping findings to the recently proposed PCCS framework for dementia care revealed that relational domains (e.g., exchanging information, fostering relationships) were prioritized over managing uncertainty, shared decision-making, and enabling self-management. Barriers were reported at the person (e.g., stigma), healthcare worker (e.g., time pressure), and system (e.g., fragmented pathways) levels. Few studies incorporated lived experience in developing recommendations or addressed emerging diagnostic technologies such as blood-based biomarkers or AI-driven assessments. Despite increasing attention to person-centred dementia diagnosis, the literature remains limited and conceptually unclear, with greater emphasis placed on initial clinical encounters than on longitudinal support across the diagnostic journey. As such, guidance on operationalizing person-centred principles throughout the diagnostic process remains sparse for individuals, informal carers, clinicians, and health systems. This review provides preliminary guidance and highlights the need for unified frameworks spanning the full diagnostic journey. Moving forward, diagnostic models and pathways should be co-produced with people with dementia and their informal carers, while person-centred standards should guide the integration of emerging diagnostic technologies.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Guo, M. Y., Diaz, A., Gove, D., Jessen, F., Khoury, C. P., Wiley, R. E., et al. (2026). Person-Centredness in Dementia Diagnosis & Detection: A Scoping Review. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10092382/v1
Vancouver
Guo MY, Diaz A, Gove D, Jessen F, Khoury CP, Wiley RE, et al. Person-Centredness in Dementia Diagnosis & Detection: A Scoping Review. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10092382/v1.
BibTeX
@article{guo2026-a07266ec,
author = {Guo, M. Y. and Diaz, A. and Gove, D. and Jessen, F. and Khoury, C. P. and Wiley, R. E. and El-Hayek, Y. H.},
title = {{Person-Centredness in Dementia Diagnosis \& Detection: A Scoping Review}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10092382/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10092382/v1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We included 23 studies with qualitative (73.9%) or quantitative/mixed-methods (26.1%) designs.
- Conceptualizations varied: 52.2% cited established theory-driven frameworks, while 47.8% described person-centredness primarily in practical clinical terms.
- Most studies addressed assessment (73.9%) and disclosure (60.9%), whereas fewer examined pre-diagnostic detection and screening (43.5%) or post-diagnostic support (34.8%).
- Mapping findings to the recently proposed PCCS framework for dementia care revealed that relational domains (e.g., exchanging information, fostering relationships) were prioritized over managing uncertainty, shared decision-making, and enabling self-management.
- Barriers were reported at the person (e.g., stigma), healthcare worker (e.g., time pressure), and system (e.g., fragmented pathways) levels.
Study details
- Study designlongitudinal study
- Participants23
- Effect size73.9%; 26.1%; 52.2%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 45 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A longitudinal study following the same people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” 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 | 1 / 4 | 23 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | 28 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 End-of-life care
Also tagged “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.