4.5 Article

Factors affecting timely recognition and diagnosis of dementia across Europe: from awareness to stigma

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1302

关键词

dementia; early diagnosis; focus group; stigma; health care services

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Timely recognition and diagnosis of dementia is the pre-condition for improving dementia care, but diagnosis often occurs late in the disease process. Objective To compare facilitators and obstacles to the timely recognition of dementia across eight European Union states, in order to implement established policies for earlier diagnosis. Methods A modified focus group technique, including a pre and posterior procedure. Results Twenty-three participants from different disciplines, purposively sampled for professional expertise in dementia research and innovative practice, attended two focus groups. Stigma in ageing and dementia, accompanied by a sense that there is little to offer until later on in the disease, underpinned the widespread reluctance of GPs to recognise dementia at an early stage and were major obstacles to the timely diagnosis of dementia across all eight countries. Dementia care services varied widely across Europe. Countries with the greatest development of dementia health care services were characterised by national guidelines, GPs fulfilling a gatekeeper function, multi-disciplinary memory clinics and innovative programmes that stimulated practice and new services. Dementia-related stigma was perceived as being less prominent in these countries. Conclusions Overcome of delays in the timely diagnosis of dementia needs more than specialist services. They should address the processes associated with stigma, age and dementia, especially where these relate to physician practice and diagnostic disclosure. Stigma is perceived as variable across European States, with a promising finding that its impact is relatively small in countries with the widest range of dementia care services. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据