Home › Research › Costs and economics
Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in delaying the institutionalization of patients with dementia: a meta-analysis
Spijker A, Vernooij-Dassen M, Vasse E, Adang E, Wollersheim H, Grol R, Verhey F.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2008-04-11
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Contemporary healthcare policies are designed to shape the conditions that can help delay the institutionalization of patients with dementia. This can be done by developing support programs that minimize healthcare risks for the patients with dementia and their informal caregivers. Many support programs have been developed, and some of them are effective, but there has been no systematic review with a meta-analysis of all types of nonpharmacological support programs with odds of institutionalization or time to institutionalization as an outcome measure. A systematic review with a meta-analysis was therefore conducted to estimate the overall effectiveness of nonpharmacological support programs for caregivers and patients with dementia that are intended to delay institutionalization. Thirteen support programs with a total of 9,043 patients were included in the meta-analyses. The estimated overall effectiveness suggests that these programs significantly decrease the odds of institutionalization (odds ratio (OR)=0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.43-0.99, P=.05) and significantly increase the time to institutionalization (standardized mean difference (SMD)=1.44, 95% CI=0.07-2.81, P=.04). A meta-analysis of the best-quality studies still showed a positive significant result for the odds of institutionalization (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.43-0.85, P=.004), although the time to institutionalization was no longer significant (SMD=1.55, 95% CI=-0.35- 3.45, P=.11). The analysis of the intervention characteristics showed that actively involving caregivers in making choices about treatments distinguishes effective from ineffective support programs. Further investigation should be directed toward calculating the potential efficiency of these support programs by applying net-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Spijker, A., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Vasse, E., Adang, E., Wollersheim, H., Grol, R., et al. (2008). Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in delaying the institutionalization of patients with dementia: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01705.x
Vancouver
Spijker A, Vernooij-Dassen M, Vasse E, Adang E, Wollersheim H, Grol R, et al. Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in delaying the institutionalization of patients with dementia: a meta-analysis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01705.x. PMID: 18410323.
BibTeX
@article{spijker2008-18410323,
author = {Spijker, A. and Vernooij-Dassen, M. and Vasse, E. and Adang, E. and Wollersheim, H. and Grol, R. and Verhey, F.},
title = {{Effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in delaying the institutionalization of patients with dementia: a meta-analysis}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01705.x},
pmid = {18410323},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01705.x}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- A systematic review with a meta-analysis was therefore conducted to estimate the overall effectiveness of nonpharmacological support programs for caregivers and patients with dementia that are intended to delay institutionalization.
- The estimated overall effectiveness suggests that these programs significantly decrease the odds of institutionalization (odds ratio (OR)=0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.43-0.99, P=.05) and significantly increase the time to institutionalization (standardized mean difference (SMD)=1.44, 95% CI=0.07-2.81, P=.04).
- A meta-analysis of the best-quality studies still showed a positive significant result for the odds of institutionalization (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.43-0.85, P=.004), although the time to institutionalization was no longer significant (SMD=1.55, 95% CI=-0.35- 3.45, P=.11).
- The analysis of the intervention characteristics showed that actively involving caregivers in making choices about treatments distinguishes effective from ineffective support programs.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants9,043
- Effect sizeOR=0.60
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 9,043 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 18410323) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Costs and economics
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.