Home › Research › Prevention trials
Overview of systematic reviews: Effective home support in dementia care, components and impacts-Stage 1, psychosocial interventions for dementia
Clarkson P, Hughes J, Hughes J, Xie C, Larbey M, Roe B, Giebel CM, Jolley D et al.. Journal of advanced nursing, 2017-07-07
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Aim To synthesize evidence to identify the components of effective psychosocial interventions in dementia care to inform clinical practice, policy and research. Background With population ageing, dementia represents a significant care challenge with 60% of people with dementia living at home. Design Overview of systematic reviews with narrative summary. Data sources Electronic searches of published systematic reviews in English using Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE and EPPI-Centre, between September 2013 - April 2014. Review methods Systematic reviews were appraised against Cochrane Collaboration levels of effectiveness. Components of psychosocial interventions were identified with their theoretical rationale. Findings were explored with a Patient, Public and Carer Involvement group. Results Thirty-six systematic reviews were included. From interventions, 14 components were identified, nine for people with dementia and five for carers, mostly undertaken in nursing/care homes. For people with dementia, there was evidence of effectiveness for cognitive stimulation and cognitive training, but less evidence for sensory stimulation, reminiscence, staff education, behavioural therapy and ADL training. For carers, there was evidence of effectiveness for education and training, psychotherapy and counselling. Conclusion There was a lack of definitive evidence of effectiveness for most psychosocial interventions. Further studies with stronger methodology or replication of existing studies would strengthen the evidence base. Few interventions were undertaken with people with dementia and their carers living at home. Further work will investigate the extent to which components identified here are present in models of home support for people with dementia and carers and their effectiveness.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Clarkson, P., Hughes, J., Xie, C., Larbey, M., Roe, B., Giebel, C. M., et al. (2017). Overview of systematic reviews: Effective home support in dementia care, components and impacts-Stage 1, psychosocial interventions for dementia. Journal of advanced nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13362
Vancouver
Clarkson P, Hughes J, Xie C, Larbey M, Roe B, Giebel CM, et al. Overview of systematic reviews: Effective home support in dementia care, components and impacts-Stage 1, psychosocial interventions for dementia. Journal of advanced nursing. 2017. doi:10.1111/jan.13362. PMID: 28621017.
BibTeX
@article{clarkson2017-28621017,
author = {Clarkson, P. and Hughes, J. and Xie, C. and Larbey, M. and Roe, B. and Giebel, C. M. and Jolley, D. and others},
title = {{Overview of systematic reviews: Effective home support in dementia care, components and impacts-Stage 1, psychosocial interventions for dementia}},
journal = {Journal of advanced nursing},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1111/jan.13362},
pmid = {28621017},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13362}
}
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
- Background With population ageing, dementia represents a significant care challenge with 60% of people with dementia living at home.
- Results Thirty-six systematic reviews were included.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of advanced nursing) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28621017) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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 Prevention trials
Also tagged “care”
995 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 995 tagged studies.