Barriers and facilitators to providing CBT for people living with dementia: Perceptions of psychological therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) experience anxiety and depression. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a recommended treatment for adults, commonly provided through primary care psychological therapies services. This study explored the facilitators and barriers to providing CBT interventions for people living with dementia or MCI, as perceived by therapists working in such services. Structured interviews were conducted with 14 clinicians recruited through primary care psychological therapies services about their experiences of working with people living with dementia or MCI and their ideas about factors that enhance or hinder offering and delivering CBT to this population. Interview recordings were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Credibility checks were incorporated throughout. Three themes were identified: 'attitudes towards dementia', 'competing demands', and 'pressure without support'. Perceived facilitators and barriers occurred across individual, service, and system levels. Facilitators were positive engagement and outcomes for people living with dementia or MCI, positive attitudes of clinicians, and flexibility within some services. In contrast, perceived barriers were stigma towards dementia and mental health in older adults, high pressure on staff to perform with a lack of support to do so, exclusion based on diagnosis, and inflexibility within some services. Clinicians were confident that people living with dementia or MCI could benefit from CBT, with some adaptations to delivery. There are implications for staff support and training, and for commissioning practices relating to the tension between minimal resources, equitable access, and person-centred 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 | 0.024 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".