Dementia in Hungary: General practitioners’ routines and perspectives regarding early recognition

Abstract

Background

Undetected dementia in primary care is a global problem. Since general practitioners (GPs) act as the first step in the identification process, examining their routines could help us to enhance the currently low recognition rates.

Objectives

The study aimed to explore, for the first time in Hungary, the dementia identification practices and views of GPs.

Methods

In the context of an extensive, national survey (February-November 2014) 8% of all practicing GPs in Hungary (n = 402) filled in a self-administered questionnaire. The questions (single, multiple-choice, Likert-type) analysed in the present study explored GPs’ methods and views regarding dementia identification and their ideas about the optimal circumstances of case-finding.

Results

The vast majority of responding GPs (97%) agreed that the early recognition of dementia would enhance both the patients’ and their relatives’ well-being. When examining the possibility of dementia, most GPs (91%) relied on asking the patients general questions and only a quarter of them (24%) used formal tests, even though they were mostly satisfied with both the Clock Drawing Test (69%) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (65%). Longer consultation time was chosen as the most important facet of improvement needed for better identification of dementia in primary care (81%). Half of the GPs (49%) estimated dementia recognition rate to be lower than 30% in their practice.

Conclusions

Hungarian GPs were aware of the benefits of early recognition, but the shortage of consultation time in primary care was found to be a major constraint on efficient case-finding.

Keywords:

• General practitioners
• primary care
• dementia
• case-finding
• cognitive tests

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all participating general practitioners for their contribution.

Author contributions

RB and NI analysed and interpreted all data and also wrote the manuscript. EP and SZH were members of the expert panel that designed the questionnaire and were also responsible for data collection. IK assisted with drafting and critically reviewing the manuscript. KK participated in the expert panel that designed the questionnaire and supervised the development of the paper. FH organised the data collection and also supervised the development of the paper. JK and MP were experts who participated in designing the questionnaire; they also assisted with drafting and critically reviewing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

The authors RB and NI were supported by the University of Szeged, Faculty of Medicine (grant number: EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00009).