Home › Research › End-of-life care
Time, talk, and teamwork: Perceptions of personalised dementia care planning conversations in primary care
Griffiths S, Wyman D, Clark M, Rait G, Davies N.. PloS one, 2026-02-27
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background Dementia affects over 57 million people worldwide. UK and international policy position personalised, conversation-based care planning as central to post-diagnostic support. However, delivery in primary care is inconsistent, and many practitioners lack dementia-specific communication training. Existing evidence focuses on single roles or settings, leaving a gap in understanding how communication operates across the primary care workforce. Aims To identify what helps and hinders effective communication for integrated dementia care planning and determine the support and training needs of the wider primary care workforce. Methods Semi-structured interviews – 11 people with dementia, 13 family carers, and 19 primary care practitioners from diverse roles, exploring experiences of care planning conversations Reflexive thematic analysis Results Three themes were developed, progressing from micro-level communication practices (Theme 1: Beyond the tick-box), through triadic dynamics (Theme 2: Balancing voices in the conversation), to organisational influences (Theme 3: From silos to meaningful shared care planning). Time and Conversation as intervention cut across all themes, shaping trust and disclosure. Participants reported reliance on tick box approaches, inconsistent preparation, and uncertainty about care plan purpose and ownership. Non-clinical roles were commonly viewed as well placed to support meaningful conversations, but were often described as constrained by unclear remit and weak integration. Conclusions A persistent gap remains between policy ambitions and everyday practice. Time-pressured, checklist-driven encounters and fragmented systems undermine shared decision-making. The expanded primary care workforce offers untapped potential to address these gaps, but this requires clearer roles, formal integration, and targeted investment in communicative skills.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Griffiths, S., Wyman, D., Clark, M., Rait, G., & Davies, N. (2026). Time, talk, and teamwork: Perceptions of personalised dementia care planning conversations in primary care. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.02.20.26345977
Vancouver
Griffiths S, Wyman D, Clark M, Rait G, Davies N. Time, talk, and teamwork: Perceptions of personalised dementia care planning conversations in primary care. PloS one. 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.02.20.26345977.
BibTeX
@article{griffiths2026-8c3fcd8b,
author = {Griffiths, S. and Wyman, D. and Clark, M. and Rait, G. and Davies, N.},
title = {{Time, talk, and teamwork: Perceptions of personalised dementia care planning conversations in primary care}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.02.20.26345977},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.02.20.26345977}
}
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
- Methods Semi-structured interviews – 11 people with dementia, 13 family carers, and 19 primary care practitioners from diverse roles, exploring experiences of care planning conversations Reflexive thematic analysis Results Three themes were developed, progressing from micro-level communication practices (Theme 1: Beyond the tick-box), through triadic dynamics (Theme 2: Balancing voices in the conversation), to organisational influences (Theme 3: From silos to meaningful shared care planning).
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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, 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 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| 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 | — / 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 | 24 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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 End-of-life care
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.