Empowering general practitioners in dementia care: The ANTISTIGMA education intervention in Europe

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThere is a well‐documented lack or delay of diagnosis of dementia in all countries, including in Europe. Most general practitioners (GPs) have acquired adequate academic and scientific information about dementia but avoid using it in practice because of stigma.ObjectivesTo persuade GPs of their role in dementia detection, an Antistigma education intervention was designed, with teaching objectives focusing on “Why” and “How” to diagnosis and manage dementia, based on ethical and practical content, as opposed to classical training centered on teaching “What”, with mainly academic content.MethodsDuring the European Joint Action “ACT ON DEMENTIA”, the Antistigma education intervention was implemented in four Universities: Lyon and Limoges (France), Sofia (Bulgaria) and Lublin (Poland). General data, including information about training and experience in dementia, was collected. Specific scales measured Dementia Negative Stereotypes DNS and Dementia Clinical Confidence D‐CO before and after training.Results134 GPs and 58 residents R completed the training. The participants were mainly women (74%), and the mean age was 42.8 ± 13.2. Before training, participants expressed difficulties in defining GPs role and worries about inflicting Stigma, Risks of diagnosis, Lack of benefit and Communication difficulties. Participants' D‐CO was significantly higher for Diagnosis process (64%) than for other clinical situations. After training, total NS was reduced from 34.2% to 29.9% (p < 0.001), and stereotypes were improved: GPs' role (40.1% reduced to 35.9%; p < 0.001), Stigma (38.7% reduced to 35.5%; p < 0.001), Risks of diagnosis (39.0% reduced to 33.3%; p < 0.001), Lack of Benefit (29.3% reduced to 24.6%; p < 0.001) and Communication difficulties (19.9% reduced to 16.9%; p < 0.001). After training, D‐CO was significantly increased in all the clinical situations (p < 0.001), but stayed highest for Diagnosis Process. There was no significant difference between the universities. Participants who benefited best from the Antistigma education intervention were those without training in Geriatrics and those working in nursing homes (who reduced the most D‐NS), as well younger participants and those who managed less than five people living with dementia per week (who increased the most D‐CO).ConclusionThe Antistigma program is based on the idea that most often GPs and R have acquired adequate academic and scientific information about dementia but avoid using it in practice because of stigma. These results outline the importance of addressing ethical issues and practical management situations in dementia education, to empower GPs in dementia care.