Back

Attitudes of People Living with Dementia and their Carers towards the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence to inform Structured Medication Reviews

Linder, B.; Du, J.; Tavares, N.; Zhu, T.; Tiwari, P.; Jawad, S.; Seeley, A. E.; Swain, S.; Gangannagaripalli, J.

2026-07-01 geriatric medicine
10.64898/2026.06.24.26356103 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Polypharmacy is common in people living with dementia (PLwD) and associated with adverse outcomes. Although Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are recommended to optimise medication regimens, their delivery is often constrained by limited healthcare resources. Artificial intelligence (AI) may support SMRs, yet little is known about how it is perceived by PLwD and their carers. This study explored their experiences of polypharmacy, views on SMRs, and attitudes towards use of AI tools in SMRs. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 12 PLwD experiencing polypharmacy and two focus groups with 14 carers were conducted via Microsoft Teams or telephone and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Results: Two themes were constructed: experiences of SMRs, and attitudes towards AI in SMRs. Participants described challenges in managing polypharmacy, with carers often playing a central role in supporting adherence and monitoring side effects. Experiences of SMRs varied widely. SMRs were most valued when clinicians were empathetic and able to offer personalised guidance. Participants viewed AI use in SMRs positively, provided that such tools were well validated and used to assist rather than replace healthcare professionals. AI was viewed as having the potential to reduce administrative burden and support more person-centred care. However, some had concerns regarding patient safety and data security, highlighting the need for appropriate regulation and human oversight. Conclusion: Participants were supportive of AI use in SMRs, despite concerns about safety, data security and disclosure of AI use, and emphasised the importance of patient-clinician interactions and lived experience involvement in AI tool development.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
DIGITAL HEALTH
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
BMC Geriatrics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 20%
9.0%
4
Age and Ageing
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
6
Archives of Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
7
Alzheimer's & Dementia
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
8
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
9
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
10
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
13
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
14
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
15
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%
17
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
18
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
19
BMC Neurology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
20
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
22
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
23
npj Parkinson's Disease
105 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
24
BJGP Open
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
GeroScience
109 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%