Variations in Self‐Reported Practice of Physicians Providing Clinical Care to Individuals with Dementia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine to what extent actual practice as reported in the literature is consistent with clinical guidelines for dementia care. DESIGN: A systematic review of empirical studies of clinical services provided by physicians to older adults with a diagnosis of dementia. SETTING: All settings involving primary care physicians in which a diagnosis of dementia is provided. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians providing care to individuals aged 60 and older with a primary or secondary diagnosis of dementia. INTERVENTION: Seven dementia care processes recommended by guidelines: formal memory testing, imaging, laboratory testing, interventions, counseling, community service, and specialist referrals. MEASUREMENTS: Web of Knowledge, PubMed, Science Direct, MedLine, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles in English published before March 1, 2012. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the final inclusion criteria, all of which were self-reported cross-sectional surveys. There was broad variation in the proportion of physicians who reported conducting each dementia care process, with the widest variation in formal memory testing (4-96%). Recently published studies reflected a shift in scope of care, reporting that high proportions of physicians provided interventions, counseling, and referrals to specialist. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability and dissemination of established best practice guidelines, there is still wide variation in physician practice patterns in dementia care. The quality of currently available studies limits the ability to draw strong conclusions. Better information on practice patterns and their relationship to outcomes for individuals with dementia and their caregivers using more-robust study designs is needed to address the needs of the increasing number of individuals who will require dementia care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".