Home › Research › Prevention trials
Key Intervention Categories to Provide Person-Centered Dementia Care: A Systematic Review of Person-Centered Interventions
Mohr W, Rädke A, Afi A, Edvardsson D, Mühlichen F, Platen M, Roes M, Michalowsky B et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2021-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Person-centered care (PCC) is an important concept in many countries' national guidelines and dementia plans. Key intervention categories, i.e., a taxonomy of person-centered (PC)-interventions, to provide person-centered dementia care, are difficult to identify from literature. Objective This systematic review aimed to identify and categorize published PC-interventions into key intervention categories to guide the provision of person-centered dementia care. Methods Conduct of this systematic review followed Cochrane guidelines. A search of the dimensions 'Dementia', 'Person-Centered Care', and 'Intervention' combined was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Study selection was based on 2-stage screening against eligibility criteria, limited to controlled study designs. Information about interventions and outcomes was extracted into an "Effects Table". The identified PC-interventions were categorized in intervention categories to provide person-centered dementia care. Results Searches identified 1,806 records. 19 studies were included. These covered a range of psychosocial interventions, oftentimes multi-component interventions, which followed heterogeneous approaches. Studies were conducted in long-term care/hospital settings. Nine key intervention categories were identified: social contact, physical activities, cognitive training, sensory enhancement, daily living assistance, life history oriented emotional support, training and support for professional caregivers, environmental adjustments, and care organization. Conclusion Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept. The heterogeneity made it challenging to identify a well-defined concept of PCC and common key intervention categories. An effectiveness-evaluation of "PC" - including "relationship-centered"-interventions may be valuable, to assess whether an explicit focus on relationships around PCC-interventions yields an added benefit. Prospero-id CRD42021225084.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mohr, W., Rädke, A., Afi, A., Edvardsson, D., Mühlichen, F., Platen, M., et al. (2021). Key Intervention Categories to Provide Person-Centered Dementia Care: A Systematic Review of Person-Centered Interventions. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210647
Vancouver
Mohr W, Rädke A, Afi A, Edvardsson D, Mühlichen F, Platen M, et al. Key Intervention Categories to Provide Person-Centered Dementia Care: A Systematic Review of Person-Centered Interventions. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021. doi:10.3233/jad-210647. PMID: 34542075.
BibTeX
@article{mohr2021-34542075,
author = {Mohr, W. and Rädke, A. and Afi, A. and Edvardsson, D. and Mühlichen, F. and Platen, M. and Roes, M. and Michalowsky, B. and others},
title = {{Key Intervention Categories to Provide Person-Centered Dementia Care: A Systematic Review of Person-Centered Interventions}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.3233/jad-210647},
pmid = {34542075},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-210647}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Searches identified 1,806 records. 19 studies were included.
- Conclusion Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 34542075) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.