路易体痴呆患者视角研究:范围综述。

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Paula Sinead Donnelly, Aoife Sweeney, Anthony P Passmore, Noleen K McCorry, Joseph P M Kane
{"title":"路易体痴呆患者视角研究:范围综述。","authors":"Paula Sinead Donnelly, Aoife Sweeney, Anthony P Passmore, Noleen K McCorry, Joseph P M Kane","doi":"10.1186/s13195-025-01760-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with specific challenges, including heterogeneity in clinical presentation and a less favourable prognosis relative to other dementia subtypes. These challenges necessitate person-centred care informed by the perspectives of those affected by DLB. This scoping review aimed to map the extent, type, and nature of research focusing on the perspectives of individuals with DLB and their care partners.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We searched six databases and two grey literature sources to identify all types of work providing information on the perspectives of individuals with DLB and/or their care partners. Two reviewers independently applied study selection criteria. Data from eligible articles were extracted, charted, and summarised using descriptive numerical analysis and basic qualitative content analysis. The review included 140 sources, of which 89.3% were research articles. Excluding non-structured reflections and commentary articles (n = 4), 68.4% of sources were quantitative and 65.4% were cross-sectional. The most common method of collecting perspective data was standardised measures assessing multidimensional concepts, such as caregiver burden. In total, 13 topics were identified, with 'emotional and psychological well-being' (n = 64) being the most widely investigated. There was a significant gap before the next most common topic: 'perspectives related to the symptom and illness experience' (n = 34).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While a range of methods was identified in this review, the evidence base is characterised by a predominance of standardised measures, with comparatively less use of qualitative approaches or non-standardised tools incorporating bespoke questions tailored to the study population. There was a disproportionate focus on specific topics, leading to research gaps. We recommend exploring novel methods to systematically capture perspectives in DLB cohorts, particularly on topics of highest priority to those affected.</p>","PeriodicalId":7516,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","volume":"17 1","pages":"117"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12105336/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research on the perspectives of people affected by dementia with Lewy bodies: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Paula Sinead Donnelly, Aoife Sweeney, Anthony P Passmore, Noleen K McCorry, Joseph P M Kane\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13195-025-01760-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with specific challenges, including heterogeneity in clinical presentation and a less favourable prognosis relative to other dementia subtypes. These challenges necessitate person-centred care informed by the perspectives of those affected by DLB. This scoping review aimed to map the extent, type, and nature of research focusing on the perspectives of individuals with DLB and their care partners.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We searched six databases and two grey literature sources to identify all types of work providing information on the perspectives of individuals with DLB and/or their care partners. Two reviewers independently applied study selection criteria. Data from eligible articles were extracted, charted, and summarised using descriptive numerical analysis and basic qualitative content analysis. The review included 140 sources, of which 89.3% were research articles. Excluding non-structured reflections and commentary articles (n = 4), 68.4% of sources were quantitative and 65.4% were cross-sectional. The most common method of collecting perspective data was standardised measures assessing multidimensional concepts, such as caregiver burden. In total, 13 topics were identified, with 'emotional and psychological well-being' (n = 64) being the most widely investigated. There was a significant gap before the next most common topic: 'perspectives related to the symptom and illness experience' (n = 34).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While a range of methods was identified in this review, the evidence base is characterised by a predominance of standardised measures, with comparatively less use of qualitative approaches or non-standardised tools incorporating bespoke questions tailored to the study population. There was a disproportionate focus on specific topics, leading to research gaps. We recommend exploring novel methods to systematically capture perspectives in DLB cohorts, particularly on topics of highest priority to those affected.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12105336/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01760-4\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-025-01760-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:路易体痴呆(DLB)具有特定的挑战,包括临床表现的异质性和相对于其他痴呆亚型的预后较差。这些挑战需要以人为本的护理,并了解受DLB影响者的观点。本综述的目的是绘制研究的范围、类型和性质,重点关注DLB患者及其护理伙伴的观点。方法和结果:我们检索了6个数据库和2个灰色文献来源,以确定所有类型的工作,这些工作提供了DLB患者和/或其护理伙伴的观点。两位审稿人独立应用研究选择标准。从符合条件的文章中提取数据,绘制图表,并使用描述性数值分析和基本定性内容分析进行总结。本综述包括140个来源,其中89.3%为研究文章。排除非结构化反思和评论文章(n = 4), 68.4%的来源是定量的,65.4%是横断面的。收集透视数据的最常见方法是评估多维概念的标准化措施,如照顾者负担。总共确定了13个主题,其中“情绪和心理健康”(n = 64)是调查最广泛的主题。在第二个最常见的话题“与症状和疾病经历相关的观点”(n = 34)之前,有一个显著的差距。结论:虽然本综述确定了一系列方法,但证据基础的特点是标准化措施占主导地位,相对较少使用定性方法或包含针对研究人群定制问题的非标准化工具。对特定主题的关注不成比例,导致研究空白。我们建议探索新的方法来系统地捕捉DLB队列的观点,特别是那些受影响者最优先考虑的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Research on the perspectives of people affected by dementia with Lewy bodies: a scoping review.

Background: Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is associated with specific challenges, including heterogeneity in clinical presentation and a less favourable prognosis relative to other dementia subtypes. These challenges necessitate person-centred care informed by the perspectives of those affected by DLB. This scoping review aimed to map the extent, type, and nature of research focusing on the perspectives of individuals with DLB and their care partners.

Methods and results: We searched six databases and two grey literature sources to identify all types of work providing information on the perspectives of individuals with DLB and/or their care partners. Two reviewers independently applied study selection criteria. Data from eligible articles were extracted, charted, and summarised using descriptive numerical analysis and basic qualitative content analysis. The review included 140 sources, of which 89.3% were research articles. Excluding non-structured reflections and commentary articles (n = 4), 68.4% of sources were quantitative and 65.4% were cross-sectional. The most common method of collecting perspective data was standardised measures assessing multidimensional concepts, such as caregiver burden. In total, 13 topics were identified, with 'emotional and psychological well-being' (n = 64) being the most widely investigated. There was a significant gap before the next most common topic: 'perspectives related to the symptom and illness experience' (n = 34).

Conclusion: While a range of methods was identified in this review, the evidence base is characterised by a predominance of standardised measures, with comparatively less use of qualitative approaches or non-standardised tools incorporating bespoke questions tailored to the study population. There was a disproportionate focus on specific topics, leading to research gaps. We recommend exploring novel methods to systematically capture perspectives in DLB cohorts, particularly on topics of highest priority to those affected.

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
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy 医学-神经病学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
172
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on translational research into Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. It publishes open-access basic research, clinical trials, drug discovery and development studies, and epidemiologic studies. The journal also includes reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, debates, and reports. All articles published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy are included in several reputable databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) and Scopus.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信