重新想象痴呆症护理:对英国痴呆症患者(PLWD)护理人员优化社会处方(SP)的复杂干预系统评价

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jessica Marshall, Evie Papavasiliou, Louise Allan, Katherine Bradbury, Chris Fox, Matthew Hawkes, Anne Irvine, Esme Moniz-Cook, Aimee Pick, Marie Polley, Amy Rathbone, Joanne Reeve, Dame Louise Robinson, George Rook, Euan Sadler, Emma Wolverson, Sarah Walker, Jane Cross, the SPLENDID Collaboration
{"title":"重新想象痴呆症护理:对英国痴呆症患者(PLWD)护理人员优化社会处方(SP)的复杂干预系统评价","authors":"Jessica Marshall,&nbsp;Evie Papavasiliou,&nbsp;Louise Allan,&nbsp;Katherine Bradbury,&nbsp;Chris Fox,&nbsp;Matthew Hawkes,&nbsp;Anne Irvine,&nbsp;Esme Moniz-Cook,&nbsp;Aimee Pick,&nbsp;Marie Polley,&nbsp;Amy Rathbone,&nbsp;Joanne Reeve,&nbsp;Dame Louise Robinson,&nbsp;George Rook,&nbsp;Euan Sadler,&nbsp;Emma Wolverson,&nbsp;Sarah Walker,&nbsp;Jane Cross,&nbsp;the SPLENDID Collaboration","doi":"10.1111/hex.70286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Carers of people living with dementia (PLWD) face a range of complex needs, including medical, emotional, social and practical challenges, often exacerbated by social isolation and barriers to accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) addresses these needs by increasing access to non-clinical support and services. However, existing research lacks detailed descriptions of SP interventions for carers of PLWD, with limited understanding of the needs they target, the reasons for participation, their effectiveness and their potential to improve outcomes for carers of PLWD.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A complex intervention systematic review of SP for carers of PLWD was undertaken using iterative logic modelling and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-CI) extension statement and checklist. Six databases and grey literature were searched, supplemented by hand searching reference lists of included studies. Results were screened in a two-step process, followed by data extraction. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Fifty-two studies were included. Findings indicated SP for carers of PLWD in the United Kingdom is varied and operates in a largely uncoordinated process involving initiation by diverse stakeholders and institutions across multiple sectors. The classification of SP interventions for carers of PLWD is inconsistent, and participation is often opportunistic. Positive outcomes included improved carer mood, social connections, practical support, quality of life and better PLWD–carer relationships. However, negative outcomes were associated with intervention suitability, emotional impact, relevance and strained PLWD–carer relationships.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>While the evidence suggests SP is a promising intervention for carers of PLWD, its long-term impacts, challenges of tailoring prescriptions to carers' needs and overcoming logistical issues remain. Additionally, further research is required to evaluate long-term impact, investigate specific mechanisms to tailor SP to specific carer needs and explore in greater detail the PLWD–carer relationship and its effects on SP uptake and maintenance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and Public Contributions</h3>\n \n <p>A PPI advisory group was involved in the review, including providing insights into review questions, the logic model, findings and results. The group consisted of one person living with dementia and a caregiver.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70286","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reimagining Dementia Care: A Complex Intervention Systematic Review on Optimising Social Prescribing (SP) for Carers of People Living With Dementia (PLWD) in the United Kingdom\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Marshall,&nbsp;Evie Papavasiliou,&nbsp;Louise Allan,&nbsp;Katherine Bradbury,&nbsp;Chris Fox,&nbsp;Matthew Hawkes,&nbsp;Anne Irvine,&nbsp;Esme Moniz-Cook,&nbsp;Aimee Pick,&nbsp;Marie Polley,&nbsp;Amy Rathbone,&nbsp;Joanne Reeve,&nbsp;Dame Louise Robinson,&nbsp;George Rook,&nbsp;Euan Sadler,&nbsp;Emma Wolverson,&nbsp;Sarah Walker,&nbsp;Jane Cross,&nbsp;the SPLENDID Collaboration\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Carers of people living with dementia (PLWD) face a range of complex needs, including medical, emotional, social and practical challenges, often exacerbated by social isolation and barriers to accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) addresses these needs by increasing access to non-clinical support and services. However, existing research lacks detailed descriptions of SP interventions for carers of PLWD, with limited understanding of the needs they target, the reasons for participation, their effectiveness and their potential to improve outcomes for carers of PLWD.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A complex intervention systematic review of SP for carers of PLWD was undertaken using iterative logic modelling and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-CI) extension statement and checklist. Six databases and grey literature were searched, supplemented by hand searching reference lists of included studies. Results were screened in a two-step process, followed by data extraction. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Fifty-two studies were included. Findings indicated SP for carers of PLWD in the United Kingdom is varied and operates in a largely uncoordinated process involving initiation by diverse stakeholders and institutions across multiple sectors. The classification of SP interventions for carers of PLWD is inconsistent, and participation is often opportunistic. Positive outcomes included improved carer mood, social connections, practical support, quality of life and better PLWD–carer relationships. However, negative outcomes were associated with intervention suitability, emotional impact, relevance and strained PLWD–carer relationships.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>While the evidence suggests SP is a promising intervention for carers of PLWD, its long-term impacts, challenges of tailoring prescriptions to carers' needs and overcoming logistical issues remain. Additionally, further research is required to evaluate long-term impact, investigate specific mechanisms to tailor SP to specific carer needs and explore in greater detail the PLWD–carer relationship and its effects on SP uptake and maintenance.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient and Public Contributions</h3>\\n \\n <p>A PPI advisory group was involved in the review, including providing insights into review questions, the logic model, findings and results. The group consisted of one person living with dementia and a caregiver.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"28 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70286\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70286\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70286","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

痴呆症患者的护理人员面临着一系列复杂的需求,包括医疗、情感、社会和实际挑战,这些挑战往往因社会孤立和获得支持方面的障碍而加剧。社会处方(SP)通过增加获得非临床支持和服务的机会来解决这些需求。然而,现有的研究缺乏对残疾照护者的SP干预的详细描述,对他们的目标需求、参与的原因、他们的有效性和他们改善残疾照护者结局的潜力的理解有限。方法采用迭代逻辑模型对PLWD护理人员的SP进行复杂干预系统评价,并按照系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA-CI)扩展陈述和清单进行报告。检索了6个数据库和灰色文献,并辅以人工检索纳入研究的参考文献列表。结果在两步过程中筛选,然后进行数据提取。Gough的证据权重框架用于评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。结果共纳入52项研究。研究结果表明,英国PLWD护理人员的SP是多种多样的,并且在很大程度上是一个不协调的过程,涉及多个部门的不同利益相关者和机构的发起。对PLWD照护者的SP干预分类不一致,参与往往是机会主义的。积极的结果包括改善照顾者的情绪、社会关系、实际支持、生活质量和更好的护理者与照顾者的关系。然而,负面结果与干预适宜性、情绪影响、相关性和紧张的plwd -护理者关系有关。虽然有证据表明SP对PLWD的护理人员是一种很有希望的干预措施,但其长期影响,根据护理人员的需求量身定制处方和克服后勤问题的挑战仍然存在。此外,还需要进一步的研究来评估长期影响,研究针对特定照顾者需求定制SP的具体机制,并更详细地探讨plwd -护理者的关系及其对SP吸收和维持的影响。一个PPI咨询小组参与了该综述,包括对综述问题、逻辑模型、发现和结果提供见解。该小组由一名痴呆症患者和一名护理人员组成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Reimagining Dementia Care: A Complex Intervention Systematic Review on Optimising Social Prescribing (SP) for Carers of People Living With Dementia (PLWD) in the United Kingdom

Reimagining Dementia Care: A Complex Intervention Systematic Review on Optimising Social Prescribing (SP) for Carers of People Living With Dementia (PLWD) in the United Kingdom

Introduction

Carers of people living with dementia (PLWD) face a range of complex needs, including medical, emotional, social and practical challenges, often exacerbated by social isolation and barriers to accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) addresses these needs by increasing access to non-clinical support and services. However, existing research lacks detailed descriptions of SP interventions for carers of PLWD, with limited understanding of the needs they target, the reasons for participation, their effectiveness and their potential to improve outcomes for carers of PLWD.

Methods

A complex intervention systematic review of SP for carers of PLWD was undertaken using iterative logic modelling and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-CI) extension statement and checklist. Six databases and grey literature were searched, supplemented by hand searching reference lists of included studies. Results were screened in a two-step process, followed by data extraction. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.

Results

Fifty-two studies were included. Findings indicated SP for carers of PLWD in the United Kingdom is varied and operates in a largely uncoordinated process involving initiation by diverse stakeholders and institutions across multiple sectors. The classification of SP interventions for carers of PLWD is inconsistent, and participation is often opportunistic. Positive outcomes included improved carer mood, social connections, practical support, quality of life and better PLWD–carer relationships. However, negative outcomes were associated with intervention suitability, emotional impact, relevance and strained PLWD–carer relationships.

Discussion

While the evidence suggests SP is a promising intervention for carers of PLWD, its long-term impacts, challenges of tailoring prescriptions to carers' needs and overcoming logistical issues remain. Additionally, further research is required to evaluate long-term impact, investigate specific mechanisms to tailor SP to specific carer needs and explore in greater detail the PLWD–carer relationship and its effects on SP uptake and maintenance.

Patient and Public Contributions

A PPI advisory group was involved in the review, including providing insights into review questions, the logic model, findings and results. The group consisted of one person living with dementia and a caregiver.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信