Institute for Health Services Research and Health Economics, Centre for Health and Society, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Düsseldorf, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Department of Geriatrics, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 13;3(3):CD009812. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009812.pub3.
People with dementia who are being cared for in long-term care settings are often not engaged in meaningful activities. We wanted to know whether offering them activities which are tailored to their individual interests and preferences could improve their quality of life and reduce agitation. This review updates our earlier review published in 2018.
∙ 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 the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 15 June 2022. We also performed additional searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 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 (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials offering personally tailored activities. All interventions included an assessment of the participants' present or past preferences for, or interest 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 selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Our primary efficacy outcomes were agitation and participant quality of life. Where possible, we pooled data across studies using a random effects model.
We identified three new studies, and therefore included 11 studies with 1071 participants in this review update. The mean age of participants was 78 to 88 years and most had moderate or severe dementia. Ten studies were RCTs (three studies randomised clusters to the study groups, six studies randomised individual participants, and one study randomised matched pairs of participants) and one study was a non-randomised clinical trial. Five studies included a control group receiving usual care, five studies an active control group (activities which were not personally tailored) and one study included both types of control group. The duration of follow-up ranged from 10 days to nine months. In nine studies personally tailored activities were delivered directly to the participants. In one study nursing staff, and in another study family members, were trained to deliver the activities. The selection of activities was based on different theoretical models, but the activities delivered did not vary substantially. We judged the risk of selection bias to be high in five studies, the risk of performance bias to be high in five studies and the risk of detection bias to be high in four studies. We found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may slightly reduce agitation (standardised mean difference -0.26, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.01; I² = 50%; 7 studies, 485 participants). We also found low-certainty 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). Two studies investigated quality of life by proxy-rating. We found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may result in little to no difference in quality of life in comparison with usual care or an active control group (MD -0.83, 95% CI -3.97 to 2.30; I² = 51%; 2 studies, 177 participants). Self-rated quality of life was only available for a small number of participants from one study, and there was little or no difference between personally tailored activities and usual care on this outcome (MD 0.26, 95% CI -3.04 to 3.56; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed adverse effects, but no adverse effects were observed. We are very uncertain about the effects of personally tailored activities on mood and positive affect. For negative affect we found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little to no effect of personally tailored activities compared to usual care or activities which are not personalised (standardised mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.14; 6 studies, 632 participants). We were not able to undertake meta-analyses for engagement and sleep-related outcomes, and we are very uncertain whether personally tailored activities have any effect on these outcomes. Two studies that investigated the duration of the effects of personally tailored activities indicated that the intervention effects they found persisted only during the period of delivery of the activities.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering personally tailored activities to people with dementia in long-term care may slightly reduce agitation. Personally tailored activities may result in little to no difference in quality of life rated by proxies, but we acknowledge concerns about the validity of proxy ratings of quality of life in severe dementia. Personally tailored activities probably have little or no effect on negative affect, and we are uncertain whether they have any effect on positive affect or mood. There was no evidence that interventions were more likely to be effective if based on one theoretical model rather than another. We included three new studies in this updated review, but two studies were pilot trials and included only a small number of participants. Certainty of evidence was predominately very low or low due to several methodological limitations of and inconsistencies between the included studies. Evidence is still limited, and we remain unable to describe optimal activity programmes. 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无法参与有意义的活动。我们想知道,为他们提供量身定制的活动,这些活动是否符合他们的个人兴趣和喜好,是否可以提高他们的生活质量并减少激越。本综述更新了我们在 2018 年发表的早期综述。
评估针对生活在长期护理机构中的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。描述增强这种个性化活动在该环境中的有效性的条件。
我们于 2022 年 6 月 15 日在 Cochrane 痴呆症和认知改善组的专科注册库中进行了检索。我们还在 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、Web of Science、ClinicalTrials.gov 和世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)中进行了额外的检索,以确保对综述的检索尽可能最新和全面。
我们纳入了随机对照试验(RCT)和对照临床试验,提供个性化活动。所有干预措施均包括评估参与者目前或过去对特定活动的偏好或兴趣,作为个人活动计划的基础。对照组接受常规护理或主动对照干预。
两名作者独立选择纳入研究,提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们的主要疗效结局是激越和参与者的生活质量。在可能的情况下,我们使用随机效应模型对来自多个研究的数据进行了汇总。
我们确定了三项新的研究,因此在本综述更新中纳入了 11 项研究,共 1071 名参与者。参与者的平均年龄为 78 至 88 岁,大多数患有中度或重度痴呆症。十项研究为 RCT(三项研究将群组随机分配到研究组,六项研究将个体参与者随机分配,一项研究将配对参与者随机分配),一项研究为非随机临床试验。五项研究包括对照组接受常规护理,五项研究包括对照组接受非个性化活动(不是个性化活动),一项研究包括对照组接受常规护理和非个性化活动。随访时间从 10 天到 9 个月不等。在九项研究中,个性化活动是直接提供给参与者的。在一项研究中,护理人员,在另一项研究中,家庭成员,接受了提供活动的培训。活动的选择基于不同的理论模型,但提供的活动没有太大差异。我们判断五项研究的选择偏倚风险较高,五项研究的实施偏倚风险较高,四项研究的检测偏倚风险较高。我们发现,低确定性证据表明个性化活动可能略微减少激越(标准化均数差-0.26,95%置信区间-0.53 至 0.01;I²=50%;7 项研究,485 名参与者)。我们还发现,一项未纳入荟萃分析的研究表明,个性化活动可能对一般烦躁不安、攻击性、不合作行为、非常消极和消极言语行为(180 名参与者)几乎没有或没有影响,这一证据来自一项研究。两项研究通过代理评分调查生活质量。我们发现,低确定性证据表明,与常规护理或主动对照护理相比,个性化活动可能对生活质量几乎没有或没有影响(MD-0.83,95%置信区间-3.97 至 2.30;I²=51%;2 项研究,177 名参与者)。自我报告的生活质量仅适用于一项研究中的一小部分参与者,而且个性化活动与常规护理在这一结果上几乎没有或没有差异(MD 0.26,95%置信区间-3.04 至 3.56;42 名参与者;低确定性证据)。两项研究评估了不良事件,但没有观察到不良事件。我们对个性化活动对情绪和积极情绪的影响非常不确定。对于消极情绪,我们发现中等确定性证据表明,与常规护理或非个性化活动相比,个性化活动可能几乎没有或没有效果(标准化均数差-0.02,95%置信区间-0.19 至 0.14;6 项研究,632 名参与者)。我们无法对参与度和睡眠相关结局进行荟萃分析,我们对个性化活动是否对这些结局有任何影响也非常不确定。两项研究调查了个性化活动效果的持续时间,结果表明,他们发现的干预效果仅在活动提供期间持续。
为长期护理机构中的痴呆症患者提供个性化活动可能会略微减少激越。个性化活动可能对代理人评定的生活质量几乎没有或没有影响,但我们对严重痴呆症中代理评定生活质量的有效性存在担忧。个性化活动可能对消极情绪几乎没有或没有影响,我们不确定它们是否对积极情绪或情绪有影响。没有证据表明如果干预措施基于一种理论模型而不是另一种,它们就更有可能有效。在本更新综述中,我们纳入了三项新的研究,但两项研究是试点试验,仅纳入了少量参与者。由于纳入研究的方法学局限性和不一致性,证据的确定性主要为极低或低。证据仍然有限,我们仍然无法描述最佳活动方案。进一步的研究应集中于为处于不同痴呆阶段的人选择适当和有意义的活动的方法。