alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Prevention trials

A Systematic Review of Multimodal Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Cognitive Function in Older People with Dementia in Nursing Homes

Yorozuya K, Kubo Y, Tomiyama N, Yamane S, Hanaoka H.. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2019-10-21

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 66 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Introduction Multimodal non-pharmacological interventions (MNPIs) have been reported to be effective in improving the cognitive function. Therefore, it is necessary to study these interventions in older people with dementia (PWD) in nursing homes (NHs). Aims This study aimed to investigate the effects, contents, frequency, duration, length, and form of MNPIs on the global and specific cognitive functions of PWD in NHs through a systematic review, and to consider what kind of intervention design is most effective. Methods A systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2008 and October 2018 was performed on the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and CINAHL databases. Results Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCTs were extracted from electronic databases, and a review was carried out. Conclusion Our review suggests that MNPIs may improve the global, executive function and memory of PWD in NHs. The combination of exercise, cognitive training and activities of daily living, and intervention at least 3 times a week over at least 8 weeks with, at least 30 min per session using the integrated form is recommended for improving the global and specific cognitive functions of PWD in NHs.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Yorozuya, K., Kubo, Y., Tomiyama, N., Yamane, S., & Hanaoka, H. (2019). A Systematic Review of Multimodal Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Cognitive Function in Older People with Dementia in Nursing Homes. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503445

Vancouver

Yorozuya K, Kubo Y, Tomiyama N, Yamane S, Hanaoka H. A Systematic Review of Multimodal Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Cognitive Function in Older People with Dementia in Nursing Homes. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2019. doi:10.1159/000503445. PMID: 31634894.

BibTeX

@article{yorozuya2019-31634894,
  author  = {Yorozuya, K. and Kubo, Y. and Tomiyama, N. and Yamane, S. and Hanaoka, H.},
  title   = {{A Systematic Review of Multimodal Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Cognitive Function in Older People with Dementia in Nursing Homes}},
  journal = {Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders},
  year    = {2019},
  doi     = {10.1159/000503445},
  pmid    = {31634894},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000503445}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

How this study scored 66/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 38 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 66 of 100. Total 66 of 100.38 of the 58 points we could judge = 66 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31634894)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 38 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100.
Total 66 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “care”

996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →