Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42692512›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Which methodologies and methods should be used for psychosocial intervention research in dementia? Protocol for a stakeholder-driven, multi-method Delphi study.

Sara Laureen Bartels, Federica D'Andrea, Alice Burnand, Simone R De Bruin, Ilaria Chirico, Emma Elliott, Aisling Flynn, Lesley Garcia, Doris Gebhard, Melanie Handley and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Sara Laureen Bartels *Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centrum Limburg, Mental Health and Neuroscience Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands sara.bartels@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2626-2557
Federica D'Andrea *The Geller Institute of Ageing and Memory, School of Medicine and Biosciences, University of West London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1643-6162
Alice BurnandThe Geller Institute of Ageing and Memory, School of Medicine and Biosciences, University of West London, London, UK.
Simone R De BruinDivision Health and Social Care, Research Group Living Well with Dementia, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Ilaria ChiricoDepartment of Human Sciences for Education "Riccardo Massa", University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Lombardy, Italy.
Emma ElliottNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration-Greater Manchester, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Aisling FlynnSchool for Allied Health and Exercise Science, Faculty of Health, Environment and Medical Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK.
Lesley GarciaSchool of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Doris GebhardDepartment of Health and Sport Sciences, Technical University of Munich, Munchen, Germany.
Melanie HandleyCentre for Research in Public Health & Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8037-5042
Niels JanssenDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centrum Limburg, Mental Health and Neuroscience Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Patricia Masterson-AlgarSchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-1346
Marine MarkaryanDepartment of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology and Alzheimer Centrum Limburg, Mental Health and Neuroscience Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Martina RoesGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Witten, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4531-8584
Nathan StephensThe Association for Dementia Studies, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK.
Lieve Van den BlockVUB-UGent End-of-Life Care Research Group, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Esme Moniz-CookFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7232-4632
Maud GraffDepartment of Rehabilitation, Radboudumc, Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-4291

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPsychosocial interventions are essential to support people living with dementia and their carers. A consensus on what is most important for research on psychosocial intervention in dementia and how intervention studies should best be conducted is currently lacking. This protocol describes the research plan aimed at achieving consensus on (i) the relevance of core elements (CEs) for the development, feasibility testing/piloting, evaluation and/or implementation phases of psychosocial interventions in dementia and (ii) methodologies (eg, design) and methods most suitable to address CEs per phase. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study was co-designed with a multi-stakeholder advisory group and a multi-disciplinary INTERDEM (psychosocial INTERventions in DEMentia) Methodology Taskforce steering committee. It will involve a multi-phase modified Delphi design, including surveys and group discussions with stakeholders, namely people living with dementia, (informal/unpaid/family) carers, health and social care professionals, policy makers, representatives from insurance companies and psychosocial researchers. A series of iterative 'rounds' will be conducted. In round 1 (Phase 1: 'identification'), stakeholders will be asked to complete an online survey rating the importance of CEs from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework, namely (i) consider context; (ii) develop, refine and (retest) programme theory; (iii) engage stakeholders; (iv) identify key uncertainties; (v) refine interventions and (vi) economic considerations per phase; propose relevant additional CEs and list methodologies/methods that most suitably address CEs. These ratings will be further explored through online discussion rounds (Phase 2: 'elaboration'). In round 2 (Phase 3: 'consensus'), participants will be asked to rate the importance of CEs again (ie, new CEs and where no consensus was reached in Phase 1) and the usefulness of methodologies/methods to address CEs. Outcomes will be discussed with the advisory group and steering committee (Phase 4: 'validation'). This process (Phases 3 and 4) will be repeated until a consensus on CEs and methodologies/methods is achieved. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received at Maastricht University (FHML-REC/2025/078) and the University of West London (UWL/REC/SBS-01195). Participants will sign informed consent prior to study participation. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, seminars, webinars, conferences, postgraduate dementia programmes, blogs, commissioner briefings and social media. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DQRFA).

Indexed as

DementiaPsychosocial InterventionResearch DesignCaregiversConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansStakeholder ParticipationUnited KingdomDelphi TechniqueDementiaImplementation ScienceMethodsPsychosocial Intervention

Identifiers

PMID42692512
PMCPMC13548282

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.