Möhler Ralph, Renom Anna, Renom Helena, Meyer Gabriele
Institute for Evidence in Medicine (for Cochrane Germany Foundation), Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 153, Freiburg, Germany, 79110.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 13;2(2):CD009812. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009812.pub2.
People with dementia who are being cared for in long-term care settings are often not engaged in meaningful activities. Offering them activities which are tailored to their individual interests and preferences might improve their quality of life and reduce challenging behaviour.
∙ To assess the effects of personally tailored activities on psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia living in long-term care facilities.∙ To describe the components of the interventions.∙ To describe conditions which enhance the effectiveness of personally tailored activities in this setting.
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 16 June 2017 using the terms: personally tailored OR individualized OR individualised OR individual OR person-centred OR meaningful OR personhood OR involvement OR engagement OR engaging OR identity. We also performed additional searches in MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP, to ensure that the search for the review was as up to date and as comprehensive as possible.
We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials offering personally tailored activities. All interventions included an assessment of the participants' present or past preferences for, or interests in, particular activities as a basis for an individual activity plan. Control groups received either usual care or an active control intervention.
Two authors independently checked the articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. For all studies, we assessed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias and detection bias. In case of missing information, we contacted the study authors.
We included eight studies with 957 participants. The mean age of participants in the studies ranged from 78 to 88 years and in seven studies the mean MMSE score was 12 or lower. Seven studies were randomised controlled trials (three individually randomised, parallel group studies, one individually randomised cross-over study and three cluster-randomised trials) and one study was a non-randomised clinical trial. Five studies included a control group receiving usual care, two studies an active control intervention (activities which were not personally tailored) and one study included both an active control and usual care. Personally tailored activities were mainly delivered directly to the participants; in one study the nursing staff were trained to deliver the activities. The selection of activities was based on different theoretical models but the activities did not vary substantially.We found low-quality evidence indicating that personally tailored activities may slightly improve challenging behaviour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to 0.08; I² = 50%; 6 studies; 439 participants). We also found low-quality evidence from one study that was not included in the meta-analysis, indicating that personally tailored activities may make little or no difference to general restlessness, aggression, uncooperative behaviour, very negative and negative verbal behaviour (180 participants). There was very little evidence related to our other primary outcome of quality of life, which was assessed in only one study. From this study, we found that quality of life rated by proxies was slightly worse in the group receiving personally tailored activities (moderate-quality evidence, mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.23; 139 participants). Self-rated quality of life was only available for a small number of participants, and there was little or no difference between personally tailored activities and usual care on this outcome (low-quality evidence, MD 0.26, 95% CI -3.04 to 3.56; 42 participants). We found low-quality evidence that personally tailored activities may make little or no difference to negative affect (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.14; I² = 0%; 6 studies; 589 participants). We found very low quality evidence and are therefore very uncertain whether personally tailored activities have any effect on positive affect (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; I² = 80%; 6 studies; 498 participants); or mood (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.23; I² = 0%; 3 studies; 247 participants). We were not able to undertake a meta-analysis for engagement and the sleep-related outcomes. We found very low quality evidence and are therefore very uncertain whether personally tailored activities improve engagement or sleep-related outcomes (176 and 139 participants, respectively). Two studies that investigated the duration of the effects of personally tailored activities indicated that the intervention effects persisted only during the delivery of the activities. Two studies reported information about adverse effects and no adverse effects were observed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering personally tailored activities to people with dementia in long-term care may slightly improve challenging behaviour. Evidence from one study suggested that it was probably associated with a slight reduction in the quality of life rated by proxies, but may have little or no effect on self-rated quality of life. We acknowledge concerns about the validity of proxy ratings of quality of life in severe dementia. Personally tailored activities may have little or no effect on negative affect and we are uncertain whether they improve positive affect or mood. There was no evidence that interventions were more likely to be effective if based on one specific theoretical model rather than another. Our findings leave us unable to make recommendations about specific activities or the frequency and duration of delivery. Further research should focus on methods for selecting appropriate and meaningful activities for people in different stages of dementia.
在长期护理机构中接受护理的痴呆症患者通常未参与有意义的活动。为他们提供符合其个人兴趣和偏好的活动可能会改善他们的生活质量并减少具有挑战性的行为。
评估针对长期护理机构中痴呆症患者的个性化活动对心理社会结局的影响。
描述干预措施的组成部分。
描述在此环境中增强个性化活动有效性的条件。
我们于2017年6月16日在Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组的专业注册库ALOIS中进行检索,检索词为:personally tailored 或 individualized 或 individualised 或 individual 或 person-centred 或 meaningful 或 personhood 或 involvement 或 engagement 或 engaging 或 identity。我们还在MEDLINE(Ovid SP)、Embase(Ovid SP)、PsycINFO(Ovid SP)、CINAHL(EBSCOhost)、科学引文索引(ISI Web of Science)、ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台进行了额外检索,以确保该综述的检索尽可能最新且全面。
我们纳入了提供个性化活动的随机对照试验和对照临床试验。所有干预措施都包括评估参与者当前或过去对特定活动的偏好或兴趣,以此作为制定个人活动计划的基础。对照组接受常规护理或积极对照干预。
两位作者独立检查文章是否符合纳入标准,提取数据并评估纳入研究的方法学质量。对于所有研究,我们评估了选择偏倚、实施偏倚、失访偏倚和检测偏倚的风险。如有信息缺失,我们会联系研究作者。
我们纳入了八项研究,共957名参与者。研究中参与者的平均年龄在78至88岁之间,七项研究中参与者的平均简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)得分在12分及以下。七项研究为随机对照试验(三项个体随机平行组研究、一项个体随机交叉研究和三项整群随机试验),一项研究为非随机临床试验。五项研究设有接受常规护理的对照组,两项研究设有积极对照干预(非个性化活动),一项研究同时设有积极对照和常规护理。个性化活动主要直接提供给参与者;在一项研究中,护理人员接受了开展这些活动的培训。活动的选择基于不同的理论模型,但活动本身差异不大。我们发现低质量证据表明,个性化活动可能会轻微改善具有挑战性的行为(标准化均数差(SMD)-0.21,95%置信区间(CI)-0.49至0.08;I² = 50%;6项研究;439名参与者)。我们还从一项未纳入荟萃分析的研究中发现低质量证据,表明个性化活动可能对一般的坐立不安、攻击行为、不合作行为、非常消极和消极的言语行为几乎没有影响或没有影响(180名参与者)。与我们的另一个主要结局生活质量相关的证据非常少,仅在一项研究中进行了评估。从这项研究中,我们发现接受个性化活动的组中,由他人代理评定的生活质量略差(中等质量证据,均数差(MD)-1.93,95% CI -3.63至-0.23;139名参与者)。自我评定的生活质量仅适用于少数参与者,在这一结局上,个性化活动与常规护理之间几乎没有差异或没有差异(低质量证据,MD 0.26,95% CI -3.04至3.56;42名参与者)。我们发现低质量证据表明,个性化活动可能对消极情绪几乎没有影响或没有影响(SMD -0.02,95% CI -0.19至0.14;I² = 0%;6项研究;589名参与者)。我们发现证据质量极低,因此非常不确定个性化活动是否对积极情绪有任何影响(SMD0.88,95% CI0.43至1.32;I² = 80%;6项研究;498名参与者);或对情绪有任何影响(SMD -0.02,95% CI -0.27至0.23;I² = 0%;3项研究;247名参与者)。我们无法对参与度和与睡眠相关的结局进行荟萃分析。我们发现证据质量极低,因此非常不确定个性化活动是否能改善参与度或与睡眠相关的结局(分别为176名和139名参与者)。两项研究调查了个性化活动效果的持续时间,结果表明干预效果仅在活动开展期间持续存在。两项研究报告了有关不良反应的信息,未观察到不良反应。
为长期护理中的痴呆症患者提供个性化活动可能会轻微改善具有挑战性的行为。一项研究的证据表明,这可能与他人代理评定的生活质量略有下降有关,但可能对自我评定的生活质量几乎没有影响或没有影响。我们承认对重度痴呆患者生活质量代理评定的有效性存在担忧。个性化活动可能对消极情绪几乎没有影响或没有影响,我们不确定它们是否能改善积极情绪或情绪。没有证据表明基于一种特定理论模型的干预比另一种更可能有效。我们的研究结果使我们无法就具体活动或活动开展的频率和持续时间提出建议。进一步的研究应侧重于为处于不同痴呆阶段的人选择合适且有意义活动的方法。