Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
When words matter: Building on the DEEP guidance for Dementia-friendly documents
Heather Eason, Mark Judd, R.P. Judd, Sally Stapleton. FPOP Bulletin Psychology of Older People, 2024-02-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
People living with dementia have the right to access dementia-friendly information about issues that concern them. This article builds on prior work by organisations such as the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project (DEEP), the Alzheimer’s Society, and AbilityNet. The article includes insights from people living with dementia. We have grouped findings into three categories explaining how to plan, design, and write dementia-friendly documents in English. We discuss using technology to access information and how adapting academic, corporate, and language norms can enhance accessibility. The article also higldiglds the need for further work on UK indigenous and community languages to provide a comprehensive approach to dementia-friendly information.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Eason, H., Judd, M., Judd, R., & Stapleton, S. (2024). When words matter: Building on the DEEP guidance for Dementia-friendly documents. FPOP Bulletin Psychology of Older People. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsfpop.2024.1.165.28
Vancouver
Eason H, Judd M, Judd R, Stapleton S. When words matter: Building on the DEEP guidance for Dementia-friendly documents. FPOP Bulletin Psychology of Older People. 2024. doi:10.53841/bpsfpop.2024.1.165.28.
BibTeX
@article{eason2024-9ee0e776,
author = {Eason, Heather and Judd, Mark and Judd, R.P. and Stapleton, Sally},
title = {{When words matter: Building on the DEEP guidance for Dementia-friendly documents}},
journal = {FPOP Bulletin Psychology of Older People},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.53841/bpsfpop.2024.1.165.28},
url = {https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsfpop.2024.1.165.28}
}
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
- This article builds on prior work by organisations such as the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project (DEEP), the Alzheimer’s Society, and AbilityNet.
- The article includes insights from people living with dementia.
- We have grouped findings into three categories explaining how to plan, design, and write dementia-friendly documents in English.
- We discuss using technology to access information and how adapting academic, corporate, and language norms can enhance accessibility.
- The article also higldiglds the need for further work on UK indigenous and community languages to provide a comprehensive approach to dementia-friendly information.
Why it matters
This article offers guidance on how to plan, design and write dementia-friendly documents in English, based on prior work and insights from people living with dementia. It is about accessible information, not about treating, curing or preventing the disease.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 24/100
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 23 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 24 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (FPOP Bulletin Psychology of Older People) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | FPOP Bulletin Psychology of Older People: journal h-index 10 (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 Sally Stapleton holds only 8 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 0 / 3 | Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: institution h-index 106 (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 | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 24 out of 100. |
| Total | 24 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “prevalence”
1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.