Attitudes towards dementia prevention in Austria—Results of an exploratory study

We contacted six senior citizen organizations and sent an invitation to participate in a workshop on dementia prevention. The invitation called for persons (all genders) from the age of 55 years onwards who were interested in brain health and were worried about their memory. Interested people registered via telephone or e‑mail. Workshop participants were also asked to participate in a follow-up telephone interview. The study was accepted by the Ethics Committee of the University for Continuing Education in Krems, Austria. The research was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration [18].

The 1‑day workshop took place in October 2021 in the German language. In the morning session, short impulse presentations on dementia prevention were provided by five experts. The German dementia activist Helga Rohra presented a “lived experience” statement. The presentations were followed by three “World Café” [19] discussions in smaller subgroups, led by two moderators where three topics were discussed: (1) participants’ knowledge about dementia and brain health, (2) offers of activities related to dementia prevention and recommendations for potential additional activities by the participants and (3) feasibility of introducing art experience in prevention routine [16, 20]. During the guided discussions, the “World Café” moderators created posters together with the workshop participants summarizing the main discussion points. All posters were presented and discussed at the end of the discussion rounds with all workshop participants. After the workshop, a qualitative content analysis of all discussion topics was performed. The summaries of the three discussion rounds were transcribed from the posters and the discussion points were organized into categories. From these categories we identified overarching themes.

Participants were contacted via telephone 6 weeks after the workshop and asked to participate in the telephone interview. For the telephone interview, a questionnaire with five closed, one open and five demographic questions was constructed. In the closed questions, participants were first asked to rate, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) “very unsatisfied”/“very low” to (5) “very satisfied”/“very high”, their overall satisfaction with the workshop discussion and their knowledge gain. Question 2 addressed the satisfaction of the participant with dementia prevention activities in their home towns/villages. Questions 3 and 4 asked about the personal interest in art and the potential of experiencing art as stimulating method for dementia prevention. Question 5 asked about the current motivation to engage in prevention activities. Finally, question 6 (open question) explored the personal gain from the workshop in greater detail.

The demographic information consisted of age, place of residence (small town, city), highest achieved education (e.g., professional qualifications, university degree) living arrangements (alone or with partner), working status (still working, retired). All telephone interviews (duration about 20 min) were carried out by one of the authors (PP). Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated for the closed questions. The answers from the open question were summarized by the interviewer during the telephone interview and the content of these notes was categorized and overarching themes were identified.

A total of 26 persons (4 males, 22 females) participated in the workshop and gave their verbal consent to be contacted after the workshop to participate in a follow-up interview. Most of the participants were present on-site (24 participants), while 2 persons participated online. The qualitative content analysis revealed four overarching categories: (A) information, (B) activities, (C) implementation strategies and (D) arts experience. With respect to “information”, participants emphasized a lack of information and the necessity to gain better knowledge on the topic of dementia prevention and the role of risk factors. Furthermore, participants stressed the importance of personal responsibility and availability of information within the public domain. With respect to dementia, participants noted that information for people with worries but also for the public is missing. With respect to “activities”, the development of appropriate motivational strategies (e.g., how to start prevention activities and how to maintain them) were discussed as well as the gender differences on motivational strategies (men seem to have different needs than women). The workshop participants also indicated that the activities should be personalized and based on their individual risk factor profile. The importance of intergenerational exchange was stressed to strengthen the bond between generations and to learn from each other (e.g., by organizing intergenerational projects in sports clubs and museums). When organizing activities, public meeting points with good accessibility (also by public transport) were suggested. With respect to the “implementation strategies”, participants suggested a strategy including activities for persons with dementia, caregivers, and the public (i.e., a brain health strategy). For these strategies, paternalism needs to be avoided and the difference between urban and rural environments should be considered. Above all, one of the main discussion points was that individual needs must be respected. With respect to the category accepting “arts experience” as a stimulating experience, participants voiced the preference of having age-appropriate programs in museums. During these special age-appropriate programs, the venues should be quiet (avoiding high peak visitor times in the museum). In the age-appropriate programs additional information on selected artefacts should be provided and a social program (e.g., coffee afterwards) should be organized to enable additional discussions of the arts experience. They also emphasized that participation needs to be affordable for all.

Of the persons who attended the workshop 20 (4 males, 16 females) also took part in the follow-up telephone interview. The mean age of participants was 70.60 years (range: 56–85 years), 18 participants were retired and 2 participants were still formally working, 10 participants lived in communities with less than 5000 inhabitants, 3 participants in communities with more than 5000 inhabitants and 7 participants lived in Vienna with a population of around 2 million people. Of the participants 8 reported to live alone and 12 lived together with their families. Overall, participants were very satisfied with the knowledge gained from the workshop (mean Likert scale, M: 4.75, standard deviation, SD: 0.43; see Fig. 1). They reported that the offers and activities regarding dementia prevention provided in their home communities were not sufficient (M: 2.65, SD: 1.15). Both general interest for art (M: 4.2, SD: 0.60) as well as the rating of the potential of art as a method of dementia prevention (M: 4.25, SD: 0.62) were high. On average participants’ personal motivation to start with dementia prevention activities was high (M: 4.79, SD: 0.40). When asked about the personal gain of the workshop (open question), participants appreciated that dementia is being actively researched in academia and that efforts are being made to create prevention programs. They also stated that they gained knowledge that something can be actively done to prevent dementia (see Fig. 1 for an overview of the results).

It needs to be acknowledged that the workshop participants consisted of a self-selected group of individuals who were highly motivated and interested in brain health and prevention of dementia as we solely recruited through senior organizations. We also had to limit the number of participants due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. To gain an even broader understanding, more such workshops in communities should be organized. The creation of different settings to attract people from different socioeconomic backgrounds is necessary. It also cannot be ruled out that the participants may have given socially desirable answers during the telephone interview as the questionnaire used for the telephone interview was not tested beforehand. Therefore, our results cannot be generalized and further research is necessary to gain a deeper insight into the motives and hurdles to embark on a more active lifestyle.