Home › Research › Prevention trials
Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: An overview and commentary on recent developments
Oyebode JR, Parveen S.. Dementia (London, England), 2016-07-04
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
An influential review in 2010 concluded that non-pharmacological multi-component interventions have positive effects on cognitive functioning, activities of daily living, behaviour and mood of people with dementia. Our aim here is to provide an up-to-date overview of research into psychosocial interventions and their impact on psychosocial outcomes. We focused on randomised controlled trials, controlled studies and reviews published between October 2008 and August 2015, since the earlier review. The search of PsychInfo, Medline and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews yielded 61 relevant articles, organised into four themes echoing key phases of the care pathway: Living at home with dementia (five reviews, eight studies), carer interventions (three reviews, four studies), interventions in residential care (16 reviews, 12 studies) and end-of-life care (three reviews, two studies), along with an additional group spanning community and institutional settings (six reviews, two studies). Community findings suggested that appointment of dementia specialists and attention to case management can produce positive outcomes; physical therapies, cognitive training and modified cognitive behaviour therapy also had a range of benefits. There was more limited evidence of positive benefits for people with dementia through interventions with family carers. Thirty-two articles focused on the management of 'behavioural symptoms' through a range of interventions all of which had some evidence of benefit. Also a range of multi-component and specific interventions had benefits for cognitive, emotional and behavioural well-being of people with dementia in residential settings, as well as for quality of life. Overall, interventions tended to be short term with impact only measured in the short term. We recommend further research on interventions to promote living well in the community post-diagnosis and to address end-of-life care. Development of psychosocial interventions would benefit from moving beyond the focus on control of behaviours to focus on wider aspects of life for people with dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Oyebode, JR., & Parveen, S. (2019). Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: An overview and commentary on recent developments. Dementia (London, England). https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216656096
Vancouver
Oyebode JR, Parveen S. Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: An overview and commentary on recent developments. Dementia (London, England). 2019. doi:10.1177/1471301216656096. PMID: 27380931.
BibTeX
@article{oyebode2019-27380931,
author = {Oyebode, JR. and Parveen, S.},
title = {{Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: An overview and commentary on recent developments}},
journal = {Dementia (London, England)},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1177/1471301216656096},
pmid = {27380931},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216656096}
}
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
- An influential review in 2010 concluded that non-pharmacological multi-component interventions have positive effects on cognitive functioning, activities of daily living, behaviour and mood of people with dementia.
- Community findings suggested that appointment of dementia specialists and attention to case management can produce positive outcomes; physical therapies, cognitive training and modified cognitive behaviour therapy also had a range of benefits.
- Overall, interventions tended to be short term with impact only measured in the short term.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 45/100
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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia (London, England)) |
| 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 | 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) |
| 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 27380931) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “prevalence”
1,223 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,223 tagged studies.