Evidence mapPaperPMID 40181649Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review.

Felix Bühler, Jennifer Geyer, Gabriele Meyer, Anja Bieber

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Methods for Involving People With Dementia in Health Policy and Guideline Development: A Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Felix BühlerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0009-0004-5104-8634
Jennifer GeyerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0009-0006-6018-2928
Gabriele MeyerInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3188-2902
Anja BieberInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, University Medicine Halle, Halle (Saale), Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9506-2532

Funding

This work was supported by German Federal Ministry of Health (Grant No. ZM/1-2521FSB98A).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) is considered part of best-practice for health care delivery, research and policy. However, people with dementia are frequently excluded from PPI initiatives. While recent studies have investigated PPI of people with dementia in research, little is known about their involvement at the macro-level of care, that is, in health policy and guideline development. This scoping review maps the evidence on PPI of people with dementia at the macro-level of care, focusing on the methods, outcomes and mechanisms of involvement.

methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and GeroLit. Additionally, we performed forward and backward citation searching, manually tracked individual references, searched abstract books and yearbooks, and contacted authors of included reports to seek additional references. We analysed each method's mechanisms of involvement to assess whether measures were taken to maximise effective information transfer.

resultsWe included 43 reports and identified 35 involvement methods, which we structured into six categories: 'focus groups and interviews', 'surveys and questionnaires', 'public events', 'meetings with decision-makers', 'serving as members of working groups', and 'multiple-step methods'. Most of the involvement took the form of consultations during the early stages of policy or guideline development. All involvement methods required verbal communication skills, almost all of the participants had mild dementia. We found that most reports did not clearly state the involvement outcomes. While a majority of methods had some facilitation in place to elicit information from participating people with dementia, only nine methods used a structured aggregation to synthesise participants' contributions into a joint statement.

conclusionWe found limited evidence of dementia-adapted involvement. Future research might focus on exploring the mechanisms of involvement to adapt methods to specific target groups, such as people with impaired verbal communication or advanced dementia. We recommend using existing guidance to report PPI initiatives, as the reporting was often incomplete, which limits reproducibility. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We discussed both our study protocol and our results with a working group of people with dementia, who provided valuable insight for our data interpretation. Our findings can serve such groups for future consultations.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationDementiaHealth PolicyPatient ParticipationPolicy MakingHumansPractice Guidelines as Topicdementiaguidelinehealth policypatient and public involvementpublic engagementscoping review

Identifiers

PMID40181649
PMCPMC11968782

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.