Home › Research › Risk factors
Interventions for hearing and vision impairment to improve outcomes for people with dementia: a scoping review
Dawes P, Wolski L, Himmelsbach I, Regan J, Leroi I.. International psychogeriatrics, 2018-09-24
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
ABSTRACTBackground:Age-related hearing and vision problems are common among people with dementia and are associated with poorer function, reduced quality of life and increased caregiver burden. Addressing sensory impairments may offer an opportunity to improve various aspects of life for people with dementia. Methods Electronic databases were searched using key terms dementia, hearing impairment, vision impairment, intervention, and management. Database searches were supplemented by hand searching bibliographies of papers and via consultation with a network of health professional experts. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included adults aged over 50 with dementia with adult-onset hearing or vision impairment who had received a hearing or vision intervention in relation to cognitive function, rate of decline, psychiatric symptoms, hearing/vision-related disability, quality of life, and/or caregiver burden outcomes. A range of study designs were included. Results were summarized descriptively according to level of evidence and effect sizes calculated where possible. Risk of bias was assessed using Downs and Black's (1998) checklist. The development of the intervention was summarized according to the CReDECI2 scheme. PROSPERO review registration number 2016:CRD42016039737. Results Twelve papers describing hearing interventions and five papers describing vision interventions were included. Most were of low to moderate quality. One high quality randomized controlled trial of a hearing aid intervention was identified. Hearing interventions included provision of hearing aids, assistive listening devices, communication strategies, hearing aid trouble shooting, and cochlear implantation. Vision interventions included prism lenses, rehabilitation training, and cataract surgery. There was no consistent evidence for the positive impact of hearing/vision interventions on cognitive function, rate of cognitive decline, quality of life, or caregiver burden. Conclusion Sensory interventions may promote better outcomes, but there is a need for properly powered, controlled trials of hearing and vision interventions on outcomes relevant to people living with dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dawes, P., Wolski, L., Himmelsbach, I., Regan, J., & Leroi, I. (2019). Interventions for hearing and vision impairment to improve outcomes for people with dementia: a scoping review. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610218000728
Vancouver
Dawes P, Wolski L, Himmelsbach I, Regan J, Leroi I. Interventions for hearing and vision impairment to improve outcomes for people with dementia: a scoping review. International psychogeriatrics. 2019. doi:10.1017/s1041610218000728. PMID: 30244688.
BibTeX
@article{dawes2019-30244688,
author = {Dawes, P. and Wolski, L. and Himmelsbach, I. and Regan, J. and Leroi, I.},
title = {{Interventions for hearing and vision impairment to improve outcomes for people with dementia: a scoping review}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610218000728},
pmid = {30244688},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610218000728}
}
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
- ABSTRACTBackground:Age-related hearing and vision problems are common among people with dementia and are associated with poorer function, reduced quality of life and increased caregiver burden.
- Results were summarized descriptively according to level of evidence and effect sizes calculated where possible.
- Results Twelve papers describing hearing interventions and five papers describing vision interventions were included.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. 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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Randomised (as stated in the record) |
| 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 30244688) |
| 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 Risk factors
Also tagged “hearing”
118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hearing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 118 tagged studies.