Gilhooly K J, Gilhooly M L M, Sullivan M P, McIntyre A, Wilson L, Harding E, Woodbridge R, Crutch S
Department of Clinical Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK.
Dementia Research Centre, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
BMC Geriatr. 2016 May 18;16:106. doi: 10.1186/s12877-016-0280-8.
There has been a substantial number of systematic reviews of stress, coping and interventions for people with dementia and their caregivers. This paper provides a meta-review of this literature 1988-2014.
A meta-review was carried out of systematic reviews of stress, coping and interventions for people with dementia and their caregivers, using SCOPUS, Google Scholar and CINAHL Plus databases and manual searches.
The meta-review identified 45 systematic reviews, of which 15 were meta-analyses. Thirty one reviews addressed the effects of interventions and 14 addressed the results of correlational studies of factors associated with stress and coping. Of the 31 systematic reviews dealing with intervention studies, 22 focused on caregivers, 6 focused on people with dementia and 3 addressed both groups. Overall, benefits in terms of psychological measures of mental health and depression were generally found for the use of problem focused coping strategies and acceptance and social-emotional support coping strategies. Poor outcomes were associated with wishful thinking, denial, and avoidance coping strategies. The interventions addressed in the systematic reviews were extremely varied and encompassed Psychosocial, Psychoeducational, Technical, Therapy, Support Groups and Multicomponent interventions. Specific outcome measures used in the primary sources covered by the systematic reviews were also extremely varied but could be grouped into three dimensions, viz., a broad dimension of "Psychological Well-Being v. Psychological Morbidity" and two narrower dimensions of "Knowledge and Coping" and of "Institutionalisation Delay".
This meta-review supports the conclusion that being a caregiver for people with dementia is associated with psychological stress and physical ill-health. Benefits in terms of mental health and depression were generally found for caregiver coping strategies involving problem focus, acceptance and social-emotional support. Negative outcomes for caregivers were associated with wishful thinking, denial and avoidance coping strategies. Psychosocial and Psychoeducational interventions were beneficial for caregivers and for people with dementia. Support groups, Multicomponent interventions and Joint Engagements by both caregivers and people with dementia were generally found to be beneficial. It was notable that virtually all reviews addressed very general coping strategies for stress broadly considered, rather than in terms of specific remedies for specific sources of stress. Investigation of specific stressors and remedies would seem to be a useful area for future research.
针对痴呆症患者及其照料者的压力、应对方式及干预措施,已有大量系统评价。本文对1988年至2014年的相关文献进行了元分析。
利用SCOPUS、谷歌学术和CINAHL Plus数据库以及手工检索,对痴呆症患者及其照料者的压力、应对方式及干预措施的系统评价进行了元分析。
该元分析确定了45项系统评价,其中15项为元分析。31项评价探讨了干预措施的效果,14项评价探讨了与压力和应对相关因素的相关性研究结果。在31项涉及干预研究的系统评价中,22项关注照料者,6项关注痴呆症患者,3项涉及这两个群体。总体而言,使用聚焦问题应对策略、接受和社会情感支持应对策略,在心理健康和抑郁的心理测量方面通常有好处。不良结果与一厢情愿、否认和回避应对策略有关。系统评价中涉及的干预措施极为多样,包括心理社会、心理教育、技术、治疗、支持小组和多成分干预。系统评价所涵盖的原始资料中使用的具体结果测量也极为多样,但可分为三个维度,即“心理健康与心理疾病”这一广义维度,以及“知识与应对”和“机构化延迟”这两个狭义维度。
该元分析支持以下结论:照料痴呆症患者与心理压力和身体健康不良有关。涉及聚焦问题、接受和社会情感支持的照料者应对策略,在心理健康和抑郁方面通常有好处。照料者的负面结果与一厢情愿、否认和回避应对策略有关。心理社会和心理教育干预对照料者和痴呆症患者有益。支持小组、多成分干预以及照料者和痴呆症患者的联合参与通常被认为是有益的。值得注意的是,几乎所有评价都涉及广泛考虑的非常一般的压力应对策略,而非针对特定压力源的具体补救措施。对特定压力源和补救措施的研究似乎是未来研究的一个有用领域。