Evidence mapPaperPMID 40442851Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025

Sex and gender differences in access, quality of care, and effectiveness of treatment in dementia: a scoping review of studies up to 2024.

Elisa Aguzzoli, Magdalena Walbaum, Martin Knapp, Laura Castro-Aldrete, Antonella Santuccione Chadha, Eva Cyhlarova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 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. 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

6 authors.

Elisa AguzzoliCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London, School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. e.aguzzoli@lse.ac.uk.
Magdalena WalbaumCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London, School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Martin KnappCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London, School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Laura Castro-AldreteWomen's Brain Foundation, 4052, Basel, Switzerland.
Antonella Santuccione ChadhaWomen's Brain Foundation, 4052, Basel, Switzerland.
Eva CyhlarovaCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London, School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.

Funding

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland No Grant ID
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia represents one of the greatest global health challenges. Women have a greater lifetime risk of developing dementia compared to men. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions aimed at slowing cognitive decline show promising results. However, most studies do not examine whether there are sex and gender differences in access to treatment, quality of care or treatment effectiveness.

objectivesTo summarise evidence on sex and gender differences in access to treatment, management, and treatment effectiveness for people with dementia.

methodsThis scoping review followed PRISMA guidelines and was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases in November 2023 and updated in January 2024. Systematic reviews and observational studies were included to explore sex and gender differences in access or management of dementia. Systematic reviews and clinical trials were included to investigate sex and gender differences in treatment effectiveness.

resultsWe included 16 studies in our review. Sex and gender differences were observed in the prescription and receipt of anti-dementia medications, as well as access to primary care, with variations by settings. Mixed results were found concerning polypharmacy and inappropriate medications, with women being prescribed antipsychotic and other psychotropic medications for longer periods compared to men. Studies of the impact of exercise on cognitive decline yielded mixed results, though limited disaggregated data by sex indicated a more pronounced impact in women than in men. Cognitive stimulation therapy interventions showed greater cognitive improvements for women. Clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) suggest that women may be less responsive to DMTs than men.

conclusionsThere are important differences between men and women living with dementia in access to diagnosis, treatments, quality of care and effectiveness of treatments. Such differences can significantly impact health outcomes. Sex and gender inequalities should be considered when planning and implementing healthcare, social care, and associated strategies in dementia. To provide conclusive evidence, it is essential for clinical trials to have sufficient statistical power and report outcomes disaggregated by sex.

Indexed as

DementiaDMTsQuality of careSex and gender differencesTreatments

Identifiers

PMID40442851
PMCPMC12121192

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.