Search

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics of Dementia Friendly Communities (DFCs) across England, in order to inform a national evaluation of their impact on the lives of those affected by dementia. METHODS: DFCs in England were identified through online searches and Alzheimer's Society records. A sub-sample (n=100) were purposively selected for in-depth study based on online searches and, where necessary, follow-up telephone calls. Data collection and analysis were guided by a pilot evaluation tool for DFCs that addressed how DFCs are organised and resourced, and how their impact is assessed. The evidence was predominantly qualitative, in addition to some descriptive quantitative information. RESULTS: Of 284 DFCs identified, 251 were defined by geographical location, while 33 were communities of interest. Among 100 sampled DFCs, 89 had been set up or started activities following policy endorsement of DFCs in 2012. In the resourcing of DFCs, statutory agencies and charities played an important role. Among DFC activities, awareness raising was cited most commonly. There was some evidence of involvement of people living with dementia in organisational and operational aspects of DFCs. Approaches to evaluation varied, with little evidence of findings having effected change. CONCLUSIONS: DFCs are characterised by variation in type, resourcing and activities. England has policy endorsement and a recognition system for DFCs. These can be important catalysts for initiation and growth. A systematic approach to evaluation is lacking. This would enable DFCs to be consistent in how they demonstrate progress and how they enable people living with dementia to live well.

Objectives: The dementia‐friendly community (DFC) initiative was set up to enable people living with dementia to remain active, engaged, and valued members of society. Dementia prevalence varies nationally and is strongly associated with the age and sex distribution of the population and level of social deprivation. As part of a wider project to evaluate DFCs, we examined whether there is a relationship between provision of DFCs and epidemiological need. Methods: Dementia‐friendly communities were identified through the formal recognition process of DFC status by the Alzheimer's Society and mapped against areas defined by English Clinical Commissioning Groups. We tested whether provision of a DFC was associated with: (1) dementia prevalence, (2) number of known cases, and (3) known plus estimated number of unknown cases. Results: Of the 209 English Clinical Commissioning Group areas, 115 had at least one DFC. The presence of a DFC was significantly associated with number of known dementia cases (mean difference = 577; 95% CI, 249 to 905; P = 0.001) and unknown dementia cases (mean difference = 881; 95% CI, 349 to 1413; P = 0.001) but not prevalence (mean difference = 0.03; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.16; P = 0.61). This remains true when controlling for potential confounding variables. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that DFC provision is consistent with epidemiological‐based need. Dementia‐friendly communities are located in areas where they can have the greatest impact. A retrospective understanding of how DFCs have developed in England can inform how equivalent international initiatives might be designed and implemented.