Burley Claire V, Burns Kim, Brodaty Henry
Dementia Centre for Research Collaboration, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing (CHeBA), School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Int Psychogeriatr. 2022 Apr;34(4):335-351. doi: 10.1017/S1041610222000151. Epub 2022 Mar 25.
Disinhibited behaviors in dementia are associated with multiple negative outcomes. However, effective interventions are under-researched. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of intervention studies that report outcome measures of disinhibited behaviors in dementia.
Systematic searches of the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsychINFO, Social Work Abstracts and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial databases were conducted for publications published between 2002 and March 2020. We included hand-searched reviews, original articles, case reports, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All studies were rated for research quality. Statistical and clinical significance were considered for individual studies. Effect sizes were included where provided or calculated where possible. Mean effect sizes were calculated for RCTs only.
The systematic review included studies involving people living with dementia.
The Neuropsychiatric Inventory disinhibition subscale was used most often.
Nine pharmacological and 21 nonpharmacological intervention studies utilized different theoretical/clinical approaches. These included pain management, antidepressants, models of care, education and/or training, music-based approaches, and physical activity. The quality of research in RCTs was strong with a greater effect size in nonpharmacological compared to pharmacological approaches (mean Cohen's = 0.49 and 0.27, respectively). Disinhibition was a secondary outcome in all studies.
Pharmacological (including pain management and antidepressants) and, more so, nonpharmacological (models of care, education/training, physical activity, and music) approaches were effective in reducing disinhibition.
痴呆症中的去抑制行为与多种负面结果相关。然而,有效的干预措施研究不足。本系统评价旨在概述报告痴呆症去抑制行为结果测量的干预研究。
对MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsychINFO、社会工作摘要和Cochrane对照试验中央注册数据库进行系统检索,以查找2002年至2020年3月期间发表的出版物。我们纳入了手工检索的综述、原创文章、病例报告、队列研究和随机对照试验(RCT)。所有研究均进行研究质量评级。考虑了个别研究的统计学和临床意义。如有提供效应量则纳入,或在可能的情况下进行计算。仅对随机对照试验计算平均效应量。
该系统评价纳入了涉及痴呆症患者的研究。
最常使用神经精神科问卷去抑制分量表。
9项药物干预研究和21项非药物干预研究采用了不同的理论/临床方法。这些方法包括疼痛管理、抗抑郁药、护理模式、教育和/或培训、基于音乐的方法和体育活动。随机对照试验的研究质量较高,非药物方法的效应量大于药物方法(平均科恩d值分别为0.49和0.27)。去抑制在所有研究中均为次要结果。
药物(包括疼痛管理和抗抑郁药),尤其是非药物(护理模式、教育/培训、体育活动和音乐)方法在减少去抑制方面有效。