A mapping review of studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to a dementia diagnosis through an intersectionality lens.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
BJPsych Open Pub Date : 2025-04-11 DOI:10.1192/bjo.2025.17
Ben Hicks, Katherine Wheatley, Emma Porter, Nicolas Farina, Sube Banerjee
{"title":"A mapping review of studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to a dementia diagnosis through an intersectionality lens.","authors":"Ben Hicks, Katherine Wheatley, Emma Porter, Nicolas Farina, Sube Banerjee","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Promoting a 'timely' diagnosis is a global policy directive.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This review adopts an intersectional approach, visually mapping the existing literature to highlight gaps in the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to dementia diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic approach was undertaken, following the PRISMA guidelines, updating previous reviews. The literature search was conducted on PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete and Scopus. In line with mapping review methodology, we report the current state of the literature by describing the number of studies that outline barriers and facilitators to seeking help for a dementia diagnosis, split by social categorisation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On the 7 June 2024, a total of 45 studies were identified. Our mapping demonstrated the majority of studies were derived from high-income countries and did not specify whether they were exploring barriers and facilitators through a specific social lens. Ethnicity was one of the few social categories where a range of evidence was reported. Other categories, such as socioeconomic status, gender and sexual orientation, received limited research attention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our mapping review suggests the large body of work within this field tends to treat people with dementia and their carers as homogenous and androgenous groups. To better inform this key policy directive, studies are needed that explore the influence of social determinants on people's experiences of seeking a dementia diagnosis. Such work would create a richer, more nuanced evidence base that better elicits ways of addressing inequalities and inequities that arise at this key stage of people's dementia care journey.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 3","pages":"e76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12052574/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.17","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Promoting a 'timely' diagnosis is a global policy directive.

Aims: This review adopts an intersectional approach, visually mapping the existing literature to highlight gaps in the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to dementia diagnosis.

Method: A systematic approach was undertaken, following the PRISMA guidelines, updating previous reviews. The literature search was conducted on PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete and Scopus. In line with mapping review methodology, we report the current state of the literature by describing the number of studies that outline barriers and facilitators to seeking help for a dementia diagnosis, split by social categorisation.

Results: On the 7 June 2024, a total of 45 studies were identified. Our mapping demonstrated the majority of studies were derived from high-income countries and did not specify whether they were exploring barriers and facilitators through a specific social lens. Ethnicity was one of the few social categories where a range of evidence was reported. Other categories, such as socioeconomic status, gender and sexual orientation, received limited research attention.

Conclusions: Our mapping review suggests the large body of work within this field tends to treat people with dementia and their carers as homogenous and androgenous groups. To better inform this key policy directive, studies are needed that explore the influence of social determinants on people's experiences of seeking a dementia diagnosis. Such work would create a richer, more nuanced evidence base that better elicits ways of addressing inequalities and inequities that arise at this key stage of people's dementia care journey.

通过交叉镜头探索痴呆症诊断的障碍和促进因素的研究综述。
背景:促进“及时”诊断是一项全球政策指令。目的:本综述采用交叉方法,直观地绘制现有文献,以突出痴呆症诊断障碍和促进因素的证据基础上的差距。方法:采用系统的方法,遵循PRISMA指南,更新先前的综述。在PubMed、PsycINFO、CINAHL Complete和Scopus上进行文献检索。根据地图回顾方法,我们通过描述研究数量来报告文献的现状,这些研究概述了寻求痴呆症诊断帮助的障碍和促进因素,并按社会分类进行了划分。结果:截至2024年6月7日,共纳入45项研究。我们的地图显示,大多数研究来自高收入国家,并没有具体说明他们是否通过特定的社会视角探索障碍和促进因素。种族是报告了一系列证据的少数社会类别之一。其他类别,如社会经济地位、性别和性取向,得到的研究关注有限。结论:我们的图谱回顾表明,该领域的大量工作倾向于将痴呆症患者及其护理人员视为同质和雄性群体。为了更好地为这一关键政策指示提供信息,需要开展研究,探讨社会决定因素对人们寻求痴呆症诊断经历的影响。这样的工作将创造一个更丰富、更细致的证据基础,更好地引出解决在人们痴呆症护理旅程的这一关键阶段出现的不平等和不平等的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信