What is known from the existing literature about adolescent knowledge and attitudes towards dementia and interventions to enhance this? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Individuals with dementia often experience stigmatisation and social exclusion. To develop dementia-friendly communities, it is important to take a life-course approach to enhance the perception of dementia in the general population. Currently, we lack an overall understanding of adolescent perceptions of dementia. This scoping review is the first to identify the existing literature on the knowledge and attitudes held by adolescents (aged 10-19 years) towards dementia. METHODS: A JBI Scoping Review. Four bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL) were searched to identify eligible studies. Eligibility criteria included qualitative and quantitative studies examining the knowledge and attitudes of adolescents (10-19-year-olds) towards dementia. Studies were screened for eligibility, with data extracted using JBI tools and synthesised in relation to i) knowledge and attitudes and ii) interventions. RESULTS: In total 21 publications were identified from the UK, Slovenia, the United States, Taiwan, Canada, Israel, South Africa, and South Korea. Ten of these studies included interventions. Overall, studies reported adolescents to have a relatively low level of objective knowledge about dementia. Conversely, attitudes towards dementia were largely reported to be neutral-positive. However, adolescents living with a relative with dementia often held predominantly negative attitudes towards the condition. Gender and having a family member living with dementia were important predictors of both knowledge and attitudes. Interventions to date are educational or intergenerational in focus and appear similarly effective in increasing attitudes and awareness towards dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The current scoping review identified a small but emergent body of literature on adolescent knowledge and attitudes towards dementia. The synthesised findings indicate low objective knowledge to be a particularly useful target for intervention and alongside other findings, will be useful to inform future research, particularly the development of high-quality intervention studies.
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 | 0.018 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".