Pennsylvania State University, Ross and Carol Nese College of Nursing, 307 Nursing Sciences Building, University Park, PA, 16802, United States.
Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, School of Nursing, 9201 University City Blvd, Charlotte, NC, 28223, United States.
Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Dec;124:104082. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104082. Epub 2021 Sep 3.
Pain commonly occurs in people living with dementia but is often undertreated. Non-pharmacological interventions are a safer first-line option for pain management, but evidence-based interventions for people living with dementia have not been established. An increasing number of studies have examined the effect of non-pharmacological interventions in pain management. However, the evidence that specifically focuses on people living with dementia has not been systematically reviewed.
This review aimed to systematically synthesize current evidence on non-pharmacological interventions to manage pain in people living with dementia.
A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they were 1) peer-reviewed original quantitative research, 2) tested the effect of non-pharmacological interventions on pain in people with dementia, and 3) English language. Studies were excluded if they 1) included both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and did not report separate results for the non-pharmacological interventions; 2) enrolled participants with and without dementia and did not have separate results reported for individuals with dementia; 3) tested dietary supplements as the intervention; and 4) were not original research, such as reviews, editorials, commentaries, or case studies. Title, abstract, and full text were screened. Quality assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Johns Hopkins Level of Evidence. Pain assessment tools, participant characteristics, study designs, intervention condition, and results were extracted. Results were synthesized through grouping the type of the interventions and weighting evidence based on quality and design of the studies.
A total of 11 articles and 12 interventions were identified. A total of 486 participants were included. Interventions that have shown a positive impact on pain include ear acupressure, music therapy, reflexology, tailored pain intervention, painting and singing, personal assistive robot, cognitive-behavioral therapy, play activity, and person-centered environment program. Nevertheless, a majority of the interventions were only evaluated once. Moreover, most studies had similar sample characteristics and setting.
Overall, the quality of included studies were mostly low to mixed quality and most participants only had mild to moderate baseline pain, which limits detection of the intervention's effect. Hence, these findings need to be duplicated in studies with a greater sample size, a more diverse population (race, gender, and settings), and a more rigorous design to validate the results.
疼痛在痴呆症患者中很常见,但往往治疗不足。非药物干预是疼痛管理的更安全一线选择,但针对痴呆症患者的循证干预措施尚未确定。越来越多的研究已经检查了非药物干预在疼痛管理中的效果。然而,专门针对痴呆症患者的证据尚未进行系统审查。
本综述旨在系统综合目前关于非药物干预治疗痴呆症患者疼痛的证据。
在 PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库中进行了全面的文献检索。如果研究符合以下标准,则将其纳入:1)同行评审的原始定量研究;2)测试非药物干预对痴呆症患者疼痛的影响;3)英语。如果研究符合以下条件,则将其排除:1)包括药物和非药物干预,且未报告非药物干预的单独结果;2)纳入既有痴呆症又无痴呆症的参与者,且未报告针对痴呆症患者的单独结果;3)测试膳食补充剂作为干预措施;4)非原始研究,如综述、社论、评论或案例研究。对标题、摘要和全文进行了筛选。使用 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具和约翰霍普金斯证据水平对质量进行了评估。提取疼痛评估工具、参与者特征、研究设计、干预条件和结果。通过对干预类型进行分组,并根据研究的质量和设计对证据进行加权,对结果进行综合。
共确定了 11 篇文章和 12 项干预措施。共有 486 名参与者入选。对疼痛有积极影响的干预措施包括耳压、音乐疗法、反射疗法、量身定制的疼痛干预、绘画和唱歌、个人辅助机器人、认知行为疗法、游戏活动和以人为本的环境计划。然而,大多数干预措施仅评估了一次。此外,大多数研究的样本特征和设置相似。
总体而言,纳入研究的质量大多为低质量到混合质量,大多数参与者只有轻度到中度的基线疼痛,这限制了干预效果的检测。因此,需要在更大样本量、更多样化的人群(种族、性别和环境)和更严格的设计的研究中复制这些发现,以验证结果。