Raising public awareness of dementia has been singled out as an important area of public health policy1 and is an integral component of most national dementia strategies.1 In the United States, the Obama administration invested $8.2 million, over a 2-year period, to support and increase dementia public awareness.2 In late 2013, the G8 summit identified dementia as a key public health issue and made a commitment to establish a cure for dementia by 2025.3 At the summit, it was argued that responding effectively to dementia required a response from all sectors of society. Accordingly, countries were urged to promote various forms of civic engagement on dementia awareness and to contribute to the prevention of dementia.3 In the United Kingdom, the British Prime Minister’s challenge on dementia, aims to deliver major improvements in dementia care and research and to improve awareness and understanding of the illness.4 According to Prime Minister David Cameron, many people do not understand dementia and therefore lack the relevant knowledge needed to help and support those living with this progressive illness.
Raising public knowledge of dementia is crucial for optimizing care and ultimately enhancing the quality of life of people diagnosed and their caregivers.5 A more well-informed public is more likely to challenge misconceptions of Alzheimer’s disease (AD)/dementia, detect first signs of dementia, and seek early treatment.5 Increasing the knowledge levels of the general population will also help to tackle the stigma of dementia and open up a better informed debate about the needs of those affected.5
One way of increasing knowledge in any substantive discipline is to map out state of the art findings based on published scientific research. Since the turn of the century and especially in the last 5 years, a burgeoning body of empirical literature has developed on the topic of the general public’s knowledge and understanding of dementia. However, as far as the authors are aware, no attempt has been made to conduct a systematic review of this literature to help inform educational programmes and to guide future scientific research. Accordingly, the present study aims to systematically review and evaluate all relevant literature on the topic of dementia literacy and the public’s knowledge and understanding of dementia.
Dementia/AD literacy refers to an individual’s knowledge about dementia/AD from a biomedical perspective. It includes their scientific knowledge and understanding of the disease cause, consequences, symptomatology, evolution, and treatment.6,7 Many studies have shown that those with greater literacy are more likely to identify the syndrome of dementia, seek optimal treatment,8–11 and request their governments to prioritize and adequately address the needs of people affected.5
Dementia is a hugely costly illness12 and is a leading cause of disability and dependence.13 Although some few risk factors such as genes, age, and sex are nonmodifiable, others, such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol are modifiable,14,15 and others again such as diabetes, stroke, and head injury although not modifiable strictly speaking may be manageable or preventable. Thus, governments could make significant savings if citizens were encouraged to pursue lifestyles and behaviors that placed them at reduced risk and if in general lay people were better educated about dementia. However, health educational programmes and national awareness campaigns need to be based on the evidence of what people know, rather than on what policy experts and educators think people know. Hence, the relevance of research on public knowledge and understanding of dementia cannot be underestimated.
The key purpose of this review was to evaluate the existing literature in the area of the general public’s knowledge about dementia, with specific attention to conceptual and methodological issues. Conceptually, the review aimed at identifying the core content of knowledge investigated in each study and in examining how the concept of “knowledge” was operationalized. Factors that might be associated with dementia/AD literacy levels such as age, sex, education, and ethnicity were also explored. Methodologically, we intended to examine the research methodologies used, response rates achieved, sampling approaches adopted, data collection tools used including the use of validated scales, and other design issues such as numbers of quantitative versus qualitative studies and of national versus cross-national designs.
METHODS
Search Strategy
An internet-based literature search relevant to the topic of the general public’s knowledge and understanding of dementia was conducted. The search was undertaken by using online databases including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Sage, PsychoINFO, and PsychARTICLES and was supplemented by a gray literature search using Google Scholar. The key terms used in the search were: (i) dementia OR Alzheimer’s disease (AD) AND (ii) knowledge OR beliefs OR understanding AND (iii) general public OR societal OR society. To identify additional studies, the search strategy was further supplemented by undertaking a library search using resources at Trinity College and by hand-checking reference lists in relevant articles, not otherwise retrieved through online sources.
Our review aimed to identify studies that specifically investigated the general public’s knowledge (objective or perceived) and understandings of dementia and/or AD. Perceived knowledge was defined as an individual’s subjective assessment of his/her general knowledge, while objective or actual knowledge was defined as an individual’s comprehension of general factual information about the disease, such as its symptoms, causes, risk factors, prognosis, treatments, and prevention. At this initial stage, all articles were reviewed by 2 independent researchers to ensure that they satisfied the study’s inclusion criteria.
Inclusion Criteria
Following one definition of a systematic review,16 our review involved a replicable scientific and transparent process that aimed to minimize bias. This was done by establishing explicit inclusion criteria followed by an exhaustive literature search of published studies. Inclusion criteria meant that only (i) studies published in English and in peer-reviewed journals between January 1, 1995 and August 1, 2014 were considered and only those (ii) studies that identified the defined key terms in their title, abstract, or text. Abstracts, letters to editors, conference proceedings, books, book chapters, and reports were excluded from the review.
RESULTS
Number of Studies Included
A total of 128,801 articles (93,427 PubMed, 16,400 Google Scholar, 1064 SAGE, 8590 PsychINFO, 8581 PsychARTICLES, and 739 ScienceDirect) were identified. However, following cursory perusal and preliminary review and based on direct relevance to the study topic (public knowledge and understandings of dementia/AD) these studies were readily reduced to 59. Of the 128,801 articles, a total of 128,679 were excluded as they investigated topics not directly relevant. In addition, a total of 63 of these 128,801 articles were duplicates and were excluded.
Another 19 studies were later excluded as after further scrutiny they failed to meet the study’s inclusion criteria. Nine were excluded as they were published in formats incompatible with the specific criteria identified (3 were non–peer-reviewed reports, 2 were articles in press and not available at the time of this review, 1 was a conference paper, another a conference abstract, 1 was a letter to an editor and another a research update). Eight others dealt with topics not fully relevant such as stigma, emotional responses, and broad attitudes and/or too specific. One other article concerned the views of a person with dementia and his/her caregiver and another was a duplicate. Our review is therefore based on 40 works.
Background of Studies Reviewed
Information on the countries where these 40 studies were undertaken is provided in Table 1. More than a quarter were conducted in the United States (N=12), 6 in the United Kingdom, and another 6 in Australia. Four studies were undertaken in Israel and 2 took place in France. Other countries that have published work in this area include Greece, Turkey, Japan, Brazil, and Pakistan.
;)
TABLE 1: National or Cross-National Study and its Location
Our review revealed that a total of 5 cross-national studies have been undertaken. Two of these pertained to the same study and involved 5 different countries namely France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom.5,17 Two others18,19 involved France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom. One other cross-national study20 involved a collaboration between France, Germany, Spain, Poland, and the United States.
Conceptual Issues and Theoretical Basis
One quarter of these studies (N=10) were theory driven or had explicit reference to theory within its text.20–29 The most common theoretical frameworks used were the Health/Illness Belief models, the Common Sense model, and Sociocultural constructs in ethnic groups.
Content of Knowledge
Each study was reviewed to identify how “knowledge” was operationalized and to gain an understanding of the actual domain of dementia/AD knowledge investigated. A total of 27 studies explored the public’s understanding of treatments (including a cure), 21 risk factors, 17 signs/symptoms of AD/dementia, 15 looked at causes/hereditary, and 13 at prevention (including protective factors). Although risk factors (facilitate the disease process) and protective factors (suppress the disease process) may be similar we counted the number of times each was mentioned independently. Interestingly, 5 studies,17–19,30,31 3 of which were cross-national also investigated the general public’s knowledge and beliefs about government support for AD and dementia.
Methodological Issues
Quantitative and Qualitative Studies
The review revealed that the majority of studies (90%) included in the review adopted a quantitative approach with only 424,25,32,33 adopting a qualitative approach. Whereas quantitative studies presented valuable information in describing the general public’s knowledge of dementia and its correlates while producing results that can often be generalized to the population, the qualitative studies provided in-depth and more understanding of the experience of dementia held by the general public.
Probability Versus Nonprobability Sampling
Two thirds of the 40 studies reviewed used nonprobability sampling, usually convenience sampling. A total of 13 papers4,8,20,23,26,34–43 used random sampling.
Response Rates
Response rates varied considerably across the 40 reviewed studies. The lowest response rate (23%) was found in an Australian population survey of predominantly older people38 and the highest (98%) in a US study of whites, Latinos, and blacks all aged over 50.35 Only 10 studies had high response rates of 80% or more. However, it should be noted that about half the studies (19/40) provided no information on response rates. Only 3 of these same studies were qualitative.
Sample Size
Sample size varied considerably across the studies reviewed. Six studies used small samples (<100), 2 of which were qualitative and had <20 respondents. Eighteen studies drew on medium size samples of >100 but <600. Two had medium-large samples sizes of >600 but <900. Ten had large samples ranging between 900 and 1999 and 6 had very large samples of 2000 people and over (these figures do not add up to 40 as 2 studies used 2 different sampling strategies).
Age Profile
Data on the average age of study participants was only available for half of the studies reviewed. In these studies, the mean age varied considerably. The lowest average age was 29 years and the highest was 82 years. In 1 study32 a median age of 82 years was given (range, 62 to 93). Many of the studies had a minimum age requirement of 18 years although 3 used a minimum age of 50 years, another 3 a minimum age of 55 years, and 1 a minimum age of 70 years. In several studies investigating dementia literacy across different ethnic groups, different mean ages of racial and ethnic minority groups were provided.
Instruments Used to Assess Dementia Literacy
More than three quarters (77%) of the studies reviewed developed their own instruments to collect data on knowledge content, usually using a series of questions (true/false responses) or a vignette prompt. However, 9 studies used the Alzheimer’s Disease Knowledge Scale (ADKS) with some using the original validated tool and others modified versions. Two others used the Dementia Knowledge Questionnaire (DKQ) and another 2 the Epidemiology/Etiology Disease Scale (EEDS). One study22 used 3 different scales namely: (i) the Alzheimer Disease and Ageing Perception Scale (ADAPS); (ii) the Knowledge of Memory Ageing Questionnaire (KMAQ); and (iii) the ADKS. Another study used the Risk Perceptions Survey modified for dementia.27
Results on Dementia Literacy
In almost half (N=19) of the studies reviewed, poor to very limited levels of knowledge were reported. A common misconception found across these studies was that dementia is a normal part of aging. For example, in a large survey of older people in Istanbul (N=859) it was shown that two thirds of their respondents considered dementia to be a normal occurrence in old age41 and in a later Greek study, of a smaller sample (N=400), similar results were reported.31 A more recent French survey found that 74% of the general public believed it was normal to lose one’s memory with increasing age and most people had difficulty recognizing early stages of dementia.30 In an Irish study, where random sampling was used, 42% of those aged 65 and above, compared with 28% of middle aged and younger people, believed that dementia was normal in older people.39 Likewise, in a recent Australian study of a convenience sample of over 250 well-educated people, the authors concluded that the most common misconception detected on the ADAPS was the public’s tendency to overgeneralize the cognitive deficits associated with normal aging.22 Our review has revealed that lack of knowledge about AD and dementia was particularly evident among ethnic minority groups.8,27,34–36,44
In another 17 studies (42.5%) reviewed, findings revealed that participants had only a fair to moderate level of knowledge about AD and dementia. In several of these studies, while awareness of AD/dementia symptoms was good, knowledge of risk factors and other aspects of dementia/AD, including causes, the difference between AD and dementia, treatments, and prevention was poor. Only 4 studies,29,30,40,45 3 of which have been published recently, reflected good knowledge of dementia among the general public. In 2 of these,29,30 younger people were more likely to be better informed about the risk factors and in 3 of the studies, education was a correlate of knowledge with more highly educated people being more accurately informed.
Correlates of Knowledge
The most common correlates of knowledge investigated were age (N=15), ethnicity (N=10), education (N=10), and sex (N=9). In a few studies, an inverse relationship was found between age and dementia literacy. For example, in 3 studies older age was associated with less knowledge of AD or dementia.11,21,29 In contrast, in an Australian study of 2000 people aged over 18, both the youngest and oldest age cohorts, compared with middle-aged people, were more aware of the risk factors.26 However, in a later study of indigenous Australians younger participants were significantly less likely to be knowledgeable.46
A total of 10 studies investigated the dementia literacy levels of ethnic and racial minority groups (ERMG). A consistent finding throughout these studies was the lower level of knowledge prevalent among ERMG, although a few of these studies showed that it was not ethnicity per se but rather level of education and years of proficiency in English that determined dementia literacy.8,34,35 One study34 revealed other common misperceptions such as AD being contagious and another35 showed that relative to whites, blacks and Latinos were more likely to perceive stress as a potential risk factor and Latinos were compared with blacks and whites less likely to perceive mental activity as a protective factor.
Another 10 studies showed that education was a key correlate of dementia knowledge.22,28,29,34–36,39,40,47,48 Higher levels of knowledge about dementia were found among better educated people and this correlation applied to both overall level of knowledge about dementia/AD and specific domains of knowledge such as drug treatments,40 risk and protective factors.40 In addition education appeared to be a major factor explaining differences in AD/dementia knowledge among ERMG.34,35,40
In studies where sex was investigated as a correlate of knowledge, by and large women tended to be better informed about AD and dementia.29,31,39–43,49 This finding generally pertained to all age groups of women with 2 notable exceptions. One was a study examining knowledge and beliefs about dementia among the Japanese public where it was shown that women in their 40s to 60s had more knowledge than their younger (20 to 39 y) and older (65 y and above) counterparts. These middle-aged women were also found to be more knowledgeable than their male counterparts.49 The other was the Northern Irish study where it was shown that significantly more men (over one third) than women (less than one quarter) knew that healthy eating habits and exercise were important factors for preventing AD/dementia.39
Government Responses to Dementia/AD
Finally, 5 studies reported on the general public’s attitudes to government responses to dementia such as funding allocated, educational programmes, and dementia strategies/plans. In general, these studies showed how the public believed that governments could be doing a lot more to address the challenge of dementia.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this paper was to conduct a comprehensive review of published studies assessing the topic of the general public’s knowledge and understanding of AD and dementia. Attempting to identify the core findings in these studies, synthesize data, and draw conclusions is challenging since as Table 2 shows, a distinct lack of consistency exists across many of these studies about fundamental issues such as concepts and constructs, sampling, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data collection instruments used including validated scales, and what the core purpose of these respective studies were. This difficulty is underscored by the fact that even within the AD expert research community, there is no universal agreement about the “right answer” to some knowledge items included in various studies.45 Despite such difficulties, a few obvious conclusions can be drawn from this systematic review.
TABLE 2: Information on Quantitative and Qualitative Studies Identified in Systematic Review of the Public’s Knowledge and Understanding of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and Dementia (N=40)
Firstly, most of the studies in this review examined knowledge regarding risk factors, symptoms, and treatments for dementia/AD. Several investigated peoples’ understanding of causes and prevention and only five studies reported on the general public’s attitudes to government responses to dementia such as funding allocated, educational programmes, and dementia strategies/plans. The general public’s knowledge about government plans and actions about dementia, on the one hand, highlights the depth and complexity of dementia/AD knowledge among lay persons, underscoring the fact that for the general population “knowledge of dementia/AD” does not only pertain to the biomedical condition itself (eg, risk/protective factors, symptoms, and treatments) but also encompasses cultural literacy.53
Knowledge of dementia is layered and has different dimensions to it (including an awareness of the political meanings and implications of dementia), all of which are interacting. In contrast, this finding reflects the awareness of, and also the significance, a population attributes to dementia as a political and societal issue. This is a particularly important point as high awareness and perceived importance of government response to dementia might point to underlying needs of the public for more and better information/education supports (which in turn may directly influence dementia/AD knowledge) and better support service infrastructures.
A result common across most studies reviewed is that the general public only has a fair to moderate understanding of dementia/AD and that across ERMG, understandings are even more limited. This is a salient finding given that those studies that involved the participation of nonwhites (Indians, Asians, Africans, and other racial groups) and reviewed here in this paper were conducted on migrant populations in western countries and based for the most part on nonprobability samples. In other words, these same studies were not undertaken in low-income and middle-income countries where we know most people with dementia live.1 There is a need for more research to be conducted in low-income and middle-income countries on the topic of public attitudes to dementia. There is also a need for low-income and middle-income countries to include dementia awareness programs in all public health agendas. Sustained action and coordination is required at multiple levels in these countries and among all stakeholders to tackle the increasing number of people with dementia.1,54 In this context we would see a major advocacy and educational role for the World Health Organization and for organizations like Alzheimer’s Disease International.
The most common misconception found across all of these studies is that dementia is a normal part of aging and there is a lack of clarity about the point at which normal age-related memory loss problems become severe enough to indicate dementia. This finding is not surprising given that many health service professionals, even clinicians trained to diagnose and treat illnesses such as dementia, often experience similar concerns.55–57 Several of the studies reviewed also demonstrated a limited understanding of early onset dementia.5,24,30 Given the widespread erroneous belief found across many of the studies that dementia is a normal part of aging, this finding is not entirely surprising.
The studies reviewed also revealed that another common misconception held by the general public is that individuals have no control over whether or not they develop dementia. The review showed that while the public’s knowledge of genetic risk factors seems to be fair to good, knowledge of modifiable risk factors for dementia is poor.26,32,36,37,39,52,58 For example, in one study37 only about one quarter of respondents were aware that hypertension and high cholesterol increase the individual’s risk of developing dementia and in another study just over one third (39%) of respondents identified smoking as a risk factor.30 In contrast, knowledge of age as a risk factor for dementia seems good across most studies reviewed.
Several limitations to this systematic review now need to be acknowledged. First, our review only concerned itself with investigating empirical studies that explored the general public’s knowledge and understanding of dementia/AD. Among the studies selected for review, several explored other issues such as concerns/fears about dementia, belief systems and attitudes, opinions and emotional reactions to people with dementia, personal experience of dementia, and intentions to seek service supports. However, such components of these studies have been excluded in this review and are the subject of future papers or future reviews. Secondly, this review has included 4 qualitative small-scale studies where inductive interpretivist approaches have been used. As researchers conducting this review, deciding how best to deal with these papers was challenging, as these studies cannot be evaluated using the same methods as quantitative studies, nonetheless qualitative approaches have huge merit. Quantitative and qualitative research can be seen as complementary and, in the context of this review, an important contribution that qualitative research makes is to further explore the complexities of and contradictions in the general public’s knowledge and understandings of dementia, areas not amenable to quantitative research but nonetheless areas that provide important insights to inform public awareness raising initiatives. Indeed, we would argue for more qualitative research to be conducted in this area. Thirdly, while this paper has argued for the need to educate the public about risk factors for primary prevention to help reduce dementia prevalence rates and secondary prevention to reduce its impact, we are conscious that this approach could be critiqued for being over simplistic and for attributing blame to the individual. Many of the known barriers leading to ignorance and misunderstandings about health issues in society today are structural rather than individual. At a macro level, a public health approach to tackling the challenge of dementia should be using a multipronged strategy and in addition to educating individuals about lifestyle issues and primary prevention should also be addressing structural inequalities in society including poverty.
This body of literature on knowledge and understanding of dementia/AD has developed very rapidly over recent years. The vast majority of these published studies have come from western countries where populations have been aging for well over a century. In total we identified 40 studies, all but 4 of which were quantitative and 5 of which were cross-national. These 40 studies came from a total of 15 different countries, most of which were European. Our review leads us to conclude that there is a need for more research to be conducted now in low-income and middle-income countries where we know most people with dementia live and where numbers will continue to increase in the foreseeable future.1 We found no clear-cut differentiation in this literature between the concepts of objective and subjective knowledge and our review shows that few studies have been theoretically driven and very few have used qualitative methodologies. Our findings point to the need for more public health campaigns targeting men and women, of different age groups and especially targeting racial and ethnic minorities.
REFERENCES
1. WHO. Dementia. A public health priority. 2012. Available at:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75263/1/9789241564458_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed August 1, 2014.
2. US Department of Health and Human Services. National Plan to address Alzheimer’s disease 2013 update [PDF resource]. 2013. Available at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/NatlPlan.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2014.
4. UK Department of Health. National children and adult services conference. Available at:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/News/Speeches/DH_089682. Accessed August 1, 2014.
5. Rimmer E, Wojciechowska M, Stave C, et al.. Implications of the Facing Dementia Survey for the general population, patients and caregivers across Europe. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2005;59:17–24.
6. Hagger MS, Orbell S. A meta-analytic review of the common-sense model of illness representations. Psychol Health. 2003;18:141–184.
7. Werner P. Lay persons’ beliefs about mental health: where is age and where is Alzheimer’s disease? Int Psychogeriatr. 2005;17:371–382.
8. Low LF, Anstey KJ, Lackersteen SM, et al.. Recognition, attitudes and causal beliefs regarding dementia in Italian, Greek and Chinese Australians. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;30:499–508.
9. Mukadam N, Cooper C, Livingston G. A systematic review of ethnicity and pathways to care in dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;26:12–20.
10. Purandare N, Luthra V, Swarbrick C, et al.. Knowledge of dementia among South Asian (Indian) older people in Manchester, UK. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;22:777–781.
11. Werner P. Knowledge about symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease: correlates and relationship to help-seeking behavior. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18:1029–1036.
12. Wimo A, Jönsson L, Bond J, et al.. The worldwide economic impact of dementia 2010. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9:1–11.
13. Sousa RM, Ferri CP, Acosta D, et al.. Contribution of chronic diseases to disability in elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes: a 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. Lancet. 2009;374:1821–1830.
14. Etgen T, Sander D, Bickel H, et al.. Mild cognitive impairment and dementia: the importance of modifiable risk factors. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:743–750.
15. Ritchie K, Carrière I, Ritchie CW, et al.. Designing prevention programmes to reduce incidence of dementia: prospective cohort study of modifiable risk factors. BMJ. 2010;341:1–9.
16. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence–informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. BJM. 2003;14:207–222.
17. Bond J, Stave C, Sganga A, et al.. Inequalities in dementia care across Europe: key findings of the Facing Dementia Survey. Int J Clin Pract Suppl. 2005;59:8–14.
18. Jones RW, Mackell J, Berthet K, et al.. Assessing attitudes and behaviours surrounding Alzheimer’s disease in Europe: key findings of the Important Perspectives on Alzheimer’s Care and Treatment (IMPACT) survey. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14:525–530.
19. Wortmann M, Andrieu S, Mackell J, et al.. Evolving attitudes to Alzheimer’s disease among the general public and caregivers in Europe: findings from the IMPACT survey. J Nutr Health Aging. 2010;14:531–536.
20. Wikler E, Blendon RJ, Benson JM. Would you want to know? Public attitudes on early diagnostic testing for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2013;5:1–11.
21. Anderson LN, McCaul KD, Langley LK. Common-sense beliefs about the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease. Aging Ment Health. 2011;15:922–931.
22. Bettens GF, Ownsworth T, Hohaus L, et al.. Assessing accuracy of knowledge of cognitive effects of normal ageing and mild stage of Alzheimer’s disease. Aging Ment Health. 2014;18:296–303.
23. Cantegreil-Kallen I, Pin S. Fear of Alzheimer’s disease in the French population: impact of age and proximity to the disease. Int Psychogeriatr. 2011;24:1–9.
24. Jones RS, Chow TW, Gatz M. Asian Americans and Alzheimer’s disease: assimilation, culture, and beliefs. J Aging Stud. 2006;20:11–25.
25. Laditka SB, Laditka JN, Liu R, et al.. How do older people describe others with cognitive impairment? A multi-ethnic study in the United States. Ageing Soc. 2013;33:369–392.
26. Low LF, Anstey KJ. The public’s perception of the plausibility of dementia risk factors is not influenced by scientific evidence. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2007;23:202–206.
27. Rovner BW, Casten RJ, Fields Harris L. Cultural diversity and views on Alzheimer’s disease in older African Americans. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2013;27:133–137.
28. Sun F, Gao X, Coon DW. Perceived threat of Alzheimer’s disease among Chinese American older adults: the role of Alzheimer’s disease literacy. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2015;70:245–255.
29. Sun F, Gao X, Shen H, et al.. Levels and correlates of knowledge about Alzheimer’s disease among older Chinese Americans. J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2014;29:173–183.
30. Breining A, Lavallart B, Pin S, et al.. Perception of Alzheimer’s disease in the French population. J Nutr Health Aging. 2014;18:393–399.
31. Tsolaki M, Paraskevi S, Degleris N, et al.. Attitudes and perceptions regarding Alzheimer’s disease in Greece. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2009;24:21–26.
32. Corner L, Bond J. Being at risk of dementia: fears and anxieties of older adults. J Aging Stud. 2004;18:143–155.
33. Devlin E, MacAskill S, Stead M. “We’re still the same people”: developing a mass media campaign to raise awareness and challenge the stigma of dementia. INVSM. 2007;12:47–58.
34. Ayalon L, Arean PA. Knowledge of Alzheimer’s disease in four ethnic groups of older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19:51–57.
35. Ayalon L. Re-examining ethnic differences in concerns, knowledge, and beliefs about Alzheimer’s disease: results from a national sample. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2013;28:1288–1295.
36. Edwards AB, Cherry RL, Peterson J. Predictors of misconceptions of Alzheimer’s disease among community dwelling elderly. Am J Alzheimers Dis. 2000;15:27–35.
37. Hudson JM, Pollux PM, Mistry B, et al.. Beliefs about Alzheimer’s disease in Britain. Aging Ment Health. 2012;16:828–835.
38. Low LF, Anstey KJ. Dementia literacy: Recognition and beliefs on dementia of the Australian public. Alzheimers Dement. 2009;5:43–49.
39. McParland P, Devine P, Innes A, et al.. Dementia knowledge and attitudes of the general public in Northern Ireland: an analysis of national survey data. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24:1–15.
40. Roberts JS, McLaughlin SJ, Connell CM. Public beliefs and knowledge about risk and protective factors for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2014;10:1–9.
41. Sahin HA, Gurvit H, Emre M, et al.. The attitude of elderly lay people towards the symptoms of dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2006;18:251–258.
42. Smith BJ, Ali S, Quach H. Public knowledge and beliefs about dementia risk reduction: a national survey of Australians. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1–16.
43. Werner P, Goldberg S, Mandel S, et al.. Gender differences in lay persons’ beliefs and knowledge about Alzheimer’s disease (AD): a national representative study of Israeli adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013;56:400–404.
44. Diamond A, Woo BKP. Duration of residence and dementia literacy among Chinese Americans. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2013;0:1–4.
45. Connell CM, Roberts JS, McLaughlin SJ, et al.. Racial differences in knowledge and beliefs about Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2009;23:110–116.
46. Garvey G, Simmonds D, Clements V, et al.. Making sense of dementia: understanding amongst Indigenous Australians. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;26:649–656.
47. Siddiqui M, Siddiqui NS, Khatri IA, et al.. Awareness of dementia among general population of Islamabad/Rawalpindi. PJNS. 2011;6:1–4.
48. Werner P. Lay person’s recommendations about interventions for Alzheimer’s disease: correlates and relationship to help-seeking behavior. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2004;19:309–315.
49. Arai Y, Arai A, Zarit SH. What do we know about dementia?: a survey on knowledge about dementia in the general public of Japan. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;23:433–438.
50. Schelp AO, Nieri AB, Hamamoto Filho PT, et al.. Public awareness of dementia. A study in Botucatu, a medium-sized city in the State of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Dement Neuropsychol. 2008;2:192–196.
51. Werner P, Davidson M. Emotional reactions of lay persons to someone with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19:391–397.
52. Yeo LHJ, Horan MA, Jones M, et al.. Perceptions of risk and prevention of dementia in the healthy elderly. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2007;23:368–371.
53. Mahoney DF, Cloutterbuck J, Neary S, et al.. African American, Chinese, and Latino family caregivers’ impressions of the onset and diagnosis of dementia: cross-cultural similarities and differences. Gerontologist. 2005;45:783–792.
54. Larson EB, Langa KM. The rising tide of dementia worldwide. Lancet. 2008;372:430–432.
55. Turner S, Iliffe S, Downs M, et al.. General practitioners’ knowledge, confidence and attitudes in the diagnosis and management of dementia. Age Ageing. 2004;33:461–467.
56. Vernooij-Dassen MJ, Moniz-Cook ED, Woods RT, et al.. Factors affecting timely recognition and diagnosis of dementia across Europe: from awareness to stigma. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;20:377–386.
57. Cahill S, Clark M, O’Connell H, et al.. The attitudes and practices of general practitioners regarding dementia diagnosis in Ireland. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2008;23:663–669.
58. Pin Le Corre S. General Population Survey of the Perceptions, Knowledge and Opinions of Alzheimer’s Disease Special Report. Paris, France: French Institute for Prevention and Health Education INPES; 2008.
