30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Clinical Interventions in Aging (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on prevention and treatment of diseases in people over 65 years of age. Sign up for email alerts here.

      36,334 Monthly downloads/views I 3.829 Impact Factor I 7.4 CiteScore I 1.83 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 1.044 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of person-centered care on people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Person-centered care is a holistic and integrative approach designed to maintain well-being and quality of life for people with dementia, and it includes the elements of care, the individual, the carers, and the family.

          Aim

          A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of person-centered care for people with dementia.

          Methods

          Literature searches were undertaken using six databases including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database, and KoreaMed using the following keywords: cognition disorder, dementia, person-centered care, patient-centered care, client-centered care, relationship-centered care, and dementia care. The searches were limited to interventional studies written in English and Korean and included randomized controlled studies and noncontrolled studies for people with dementia living in any setting.

          Results

          Nineteen interventional studies, including 3,985 participants, were identified. Of these, 17 studies were from long-term care facilities and two studies were from homecare settings. The pooled data from randomized controlled studies favored person-centered care in reducing agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and depression and improving the quality of life. Subgroup analysis identified greater effectiveness of person-centered care when implemented for people with less severe dementia. For agitation, short-term interventions had a greater effect (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −0.434; 95% conference interval [CI]: −0.701 to −0.166) than long-term interventions (SMD: −0.098; 95% CI: −0.190 to 0.007). Individualized activities resulted in a significantly greater beneficial effect than standard care (SMD: 0.513; 95% CI: −0.994 to −0.032). However, long-term, staff education, and cultural change interventions had a greater effect on improving the quality of life for people with dementia (SMD: 0.191; 95% CI: 0.079 to 0.302).

          Conclusion

          This systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence for person-centered care in clinical practice for people with dementia. Person-centered care interventions were shown to reduce agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and depression and to improve the quality of life. Person-centered care interventions can effectively reduce agitation for a short term using intensive and activity-based intervention. However, an educational strategy that promotes learning and skill development of internal care staff is needed to enhance patient’s quality of life and to ensure the sustainability of the effects of behavioral problems. The feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention, the severity of patient disease, and intervention type and duration should be considered as part of an intervention design.

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity.

          To develop and validate a new risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized studies (NRSs). We developed the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies (RoBANS). A validation process with 39 NRSs examined the reliability (interrater agreement), validity (the degree of correlation between the overall assessments of RoBANS and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies [MINORS], obtained by plotting the overall risk of bias relative to effect size and funding source), face validity with eight experts, and completion time for the RoBANS approach. RoBANS contains six domains: the selection of participants, confounding variables, the measurement of exposure, the blinding of the outcome assessments, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. The interrater agreement of the RoBANS tool except the measurement of exposure and selective outcome reporting domains ranged from fair to substantial. There was a moderate correlation between the overall risks of bias determined using RoBANS and MINORS. The observed differences in effect sizes and funding sources among the assessed studies were not correlated with the overall risk of bias in these studies. The mean time required to complete RoBANS was approximately 10 min. The external experts who were interviewed evaluated RoBANS as a "fair" assessment tool. RoBANS shows moderate reliability, promising feasibility, and validity. The further refinement of this tool and larger validation studies are required. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Towards a theory of dementia care: personhood and well-being.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dementia care mapping: a review of the research literature.

              The published literature on dementia care mapping (DCM) in improving quality of life and quality of care through practice development and research dates back to 1993. The purpose of this review of the research literature is to answer some key questions about the nature of the tool and its efficacy, to inform the ongoing revision of the tool, and to set an agenda for future research. The DCM bibliographic database at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom contains all publications known on DCM (http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/health/dcm). This formed the basis of the review. Texts that specifically examined the efficacy of DCM or in which DCM was used as a main measure in the evaluation or research were reviewed. Thirty-four papers were categorized into five main types: (a) cross-sectional surveys, (b) evaluations of interventions, (c) practice development evaluations, (d) multimethod evaluations, and (e) papers investigating the psychometric properties of DCM. These publications provide some evidence regarding the efficacy of DCM, issues of validity and reliability, and its use in practice and research. The need for further development and research in a number of key areas is highlighted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Interv Aging
                Clin Interv Aging
                Clinical Interventions in Aging
                Clinical Interventions in Aging
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-9092
                1178-1998
                2017
                17 February 2017
                : 12
                : 381-397
                Affiliations
                Education and Research Center for Evidence Based Nursing Knowledge, College of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Myonghwa Park, Education and Research Center for Evidence Based Nursing Knowledge, College of Nursing, Chungnam National University, 266 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon 35015, Republic of Korea, Tel +82 42 580 8328, Email mhpark@ 123456cnu.ac.kr
                Article
                cia-12-381
                10.2147/CIA.S117637
                5322939
                28255234
                8018e9c4-1183-4e65-94a6-604a2411a7e0
                © 2017 Kim and Park. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Review

                Health & Social care
                dementia,meta-analysis,patient-centered care,person-centered care,neuropsychiatric symptoms,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article