ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)
Practical social media recommendations for dementia prevention researchers.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An exploration of demographic and conceptual factors related to attitudes towards dementia.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Practical social media recommendations for dementia prevention researchers.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPractical social media recommendations are needed to facilitate greater engagement in dementia prevention research. Alongside relevant experts, our aim was to develop a set of consensus recommendations that reflect the values and priorities of prospective participants to guide social media use.
methodsWe conducted a three-round, modified Delphi consisting of three online surveys and three conferences calls. The diverse, international Delphi panel comprised 16 experts with lived (
resultsTwenty-six items achieved consensus. Two items reached consensus in round 1: ethical considerations of closed social media groups (88%) and of social media users sharing prevention content with connections who are not on social media (79%). Nine items reached consensus in round 2, related to misinformation (79%), stigma (93%), and other key aspects of social media communication. After revisions, 15 items reached consensus in the final round. These items included: identifying when researchers ought to engage, managing closed social media groups, rankings of short form content, prioritizing lay summaries and multimedia resources, and rankings of preferred language. One item about the language of prevention for audiences living with dementia did not reach consensus. Final consensus items formed the new set of recommendations, which we organized into seven social media use cases. These use cases include setting up a social media page or community, handling online misinformation, actively challenging stigma, handling difficult online interactions, introducing new research to the public, help with study recruitment, and the language of prevention when writing posts. DISCUSSION: These consensus recommendations can help dementia prevention researchers harness social media use for the purposes of public engagement and uphold the norms and values specific to the dementia research and broader communities. Highlights: We created social media recommendations with research and community experts.Recommendations cover key ethical considerations for dementia prevention research.Areas include misinformation, stigma, information updates, and preferred language.Full consensus recommendations are organized into seven social media use cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.