Sarah Polack, Georgia Bell, Barbora Silarova, Molly Hebditch, Alison Tingle, Andrew Sommerlad, Elena Portacolone, Kath Sykes, Naji Tabet
{"title":"对独居痴呆患者的非药物干预：系统综述","authors":"Sarah Polack, Georgia Bell, Barbora Silarova, Molly Hebditch, Alison Tingle, Andrew Sommerlad, Elena Portacolone, Kath Sykes, Naji Tabet","doi":"10.1002/gps.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Approximately one third of people with dementia live on their own and they face an increased risk of unmet needs and loneliness. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe non-pharmacological interventions that have been evaluated for people with dementia living alone and to examine the effectiveness of these interventions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Following PRISMA guidelines, six databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Care online, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that reported on the impact or experience of an intervention for people with dementia living alone in the community (not long-term care) and that had been published since 2000 were included in the review. No restrictions were applied in terms of study design or outcome measures. Study risk of bias was assessed, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize findings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirteen studies of 13 different interventions were included, grouped into five intervention categories: home-based dementia case/care management (<i>n</i> = 4), technology (<i>n</i> = 3), social (<i>n</i> = 3), cognitive (<i>n</i> = 2) and psychological (<i>n</i> = 1). There was one randomized controlled trial (RCT), and two economic evaluations that used data from RCTs. Most other studies were small-scale, and only two were evaluated to have low risk of bias. Most studies reported positive or mixed findings in terms of the intervention's impact on the person with dementia or aspects of feasibility. However, studies were heterogeneous in terms of intervention, study design, and outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This review of a limited body of research highlights the potential for interventions to support people with dementia who live alone. It also identifies key evidence gaps and the need for more robust and comparable research to better understand what works, why, for who, and how. Involving people with dementia who live alone in the design, implementation, and evaluation of these interventions will be crucial to ensure that their needs and preferences are met.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14060,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry","volume":"40 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gps.70059","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-Pharmacological Interventions for People With Dementia Who Live Alone: A Systematic Review\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Polack, Georgia Bell, Barbora Silarova, Molly Hebditch, Alison Tingle, Andrew Sommerlad, Elena Portacolone, Kath Sykes, Naji Tabet\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/gps.70059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Approximately one third of people with dementia live on their own and they face an increased risk of unmet needs and loneliness. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe non-pharmacological interventions that have been evaluated for people with dementia living alone and to examine the effectiveness of these interventions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Following PRISMA guidelines, six databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Care online, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that reported on the impact or experience of an intervention for people with dementia living alone in the community (not long-term care) and that had been published since 2000 were included in the review. No restrictions were applied in terms of study design or outcome measures. Study risk of bias was assessed, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize findings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirteen studies of 13 different interventions were included, grouped into five intervention categories: home-based dementia case/care management (<i>n</i> = 4), technology (<i>n</i> = 3), social (<i>n</i> = 3), cognitive (<i>n</i> = 2) and psychological (<i>n</i> = 1). There was one randomized controlled trial (RCT), and two economic evaluations that used data from RCTs. Most other studies were small-scale, and only two were evaluated to have low risk of bias. Most studies reported positive or mixed findings in terms of the intervention's impact on the person with dementia or aspects of feasibility. However, studies were heterogeneous in terms of intervention, study design, and outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>This review of a limited body of research highlights the potential for interventions to support people with dementia who live alone. It also identifies key evidence gaps and the need for more robust and comparable research to better understand what works, why, for who, and how. Involving people with dementia who live alone in the design, implementation, and evaluation of these interventions will be crucial to ensure that their needs and preferences are met.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"40 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gps.70059\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gps.70059\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gps.70059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Non-Pharmacological Interventions for People With Dementia Who Live Alone: A Systematic Review
Objectives
Approximately one third of people with dementia live on their own and they face an increased risk of unmet needs and loneliness. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe non-pharmacological interventions that have been evaluated for people with dementia living alone and to examine the effectiveness of these interventions.
Methods
Following PRISMA guidelines, six databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Care online, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that reported on the impact or experience of an intervention for people with dementia living alone in the community (not long-term care) and that had been published since 2000 were included in the review. No restrictions were applied in terms of study design or outcome measures. Study risk of bias was assessed, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize findings.
Results
Thirteen studies of 13 different interventions were included, grouped into five intervention categories: home-based dementia case/care management (n = 4), technology (n = 3), social (n = 3), cognitive (n = 2) and psychological (n = 1). There was one randomized controlled trial (RCT), and two economic evaluations that used data from RCTs. Most other studies were small-scale, and only two were evaluated to have low risk of bias. Most studies reported positive or mixed findings in terms of the intervention's impact on the person with dementia or aspects of feasibility. However, studies were heterogeneous in terms of intervention, study design, and outcomes.
Conclusions
This review of a limited body of research highlights the potential for interventions to support people with dementia who live alone. It also identifies key evidence gaps and the need for more robust and comparable research to better understand what works, why, for who, and how. Involving people with dementia who live alone in the design, implementation, and evaluation of these interventions will be crucial to ensure that their needs and preferences are met.
期刊介绍：
The rapidly increasing world population of aged people has led to a growing need to focus attention on the problems of mental disorder in late life. The aim of the Journal is to communicate the results of original research in the causes, treatment and care of all forms of mental disorder which affect the elderly. The Journal is of interest to psychiatrists, psychologists, social scientists, nurses and others engaged in therapeutic professions, together with general neurobiological researchers.
The Journal provides an international perspective on the important issue of geriatric psychiatry, and contributions are published from countries throughout the world. Topics covered include epidemiology of mental disorders in old age, clinical aetiological research, post-mortem pathological and neurochemical studies, treatment trials and evaluation of geriatric psychiatry services.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
