Research Among People Living With Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment in Physiotherapy Journals: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Global estimates forecast an increase in the number of people living with dementia (PLWD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Physiotherapists play an important role in the delivery of care to PLWD or MCI; however, physiotherapists report less confidence when working with PLWD or MCI, citing limited educational opportunities. Our scoping review sought to quantify and assess the type of research published in physiotherapy journals related to these groups of people. METHODS: Fifteen journals were selected based on global physiotherapy representation, indexing, and online accessibility of archives. Extraction of all articles published within a decade (2011-2021) for the selected journals was completed. Inclusion criteria: (1) research reports, reviews, case studies, or expert opinion pieces related to PLWD or MCI and (2) published in English. Each article was categorized by type of article, clinical setting, type of dementia, physiotherapy focus, and Sackett's system of hierarchy of evidence. An analysis of trends over time and a bibliometric assessment of research impact were performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of 11 091 articles identified, 67 were included. The most common country of origin was the United States (38.8%). Articles were mainly research reports (70.1%), from a community-dwelling setting (50.8%), with a combined physiotherapy focus (28.4%), and a level IV (37.3%) of hierarchy of evidence. Close to half of studies did not identify the underlying dementia type (43.3%, n = 29), followed by people living with Alzheimer's dementia (28.4%, n = 19), combined groups of PLWD or MCI (20.9%, n = 14), and individuals with only MCI (7.5%, n = 5). Six articles on average related to PLWD or MCI were published annually (32.7 citation per article), and no growing trend was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Few articles published in prominent physiotherapy journals over the last decade were related to PLWD or MCI. Publication trends remained unchanged, and publication origins were from the Americas which impacts generalizability. Physiotherapists should obtain complementary information on care for PLWD or MCI through more general rehabilitation journals. Physiotherapy journals should seek to promote research related to PLWD or MCI through different avenues (eg, special issues) as increased information is needed for clinicians to feel confident in providing informed 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 | 0.027 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.064 | 0.063 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".