Neal David, Bartels Sara Laureen, Berdai Chaouni Saloua, Caprioli Thais, Comas-Herrera Adelina, Chattat Rabih, Diaz Ana, Dröes Rose-Marie, Faulkner Thomas, Felding Simone Anna, Franco-Martin Manuel, Giebel Clarissa, Gonçalves-Pereira Manuel, Hesse Samira, Holmerova Iva, Koh Wei Qi, Mena Emily, Misonow Julia, Mkrtchyan Anahit, Müller Nicole, Roes Martina, van Rompuy Isabeau, Rymaszewska Joanna, Szcześniak Dorota, Thyrian Jochen René, de Vugt Marjolein, Walden Amy, Wolf-Ostermann Karin, Hopper Louise
Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Alzheimer Centrum Limburg, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Mental Health and Neurosciences Research Institute, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, 6229 ET Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Apr 2;15(4):457. doi: 10.3390/bs15040457.
In dementia care, access to effective psychosocial interventions is often addressed by evidence-based guidelines for care providers. However, it is unclear if current guidelines consider personal characteristics that may impact intervention effectiveness. This study investigates if, and within what framing, dementia care guidelines in Europe address what is effective and for whom. A review of 47 guidelines from 12 European countries was conducted. Content analysis focused on (i) if guidelines recommended specific psychosocial interventions, and how guidelines referred to (ii) social health, (iii) the intersection of social positioning, and (iv) inequities in care or outcomes. Thirty-five guidelines (74%) recommended specific psychosocial interventions. Around half referenced aspects of social health and of intersectionality. Thirteen guidelines (28%) referenced inequities. Social health was not explicitly recognised as a mechanism of psychosocial interventions. Only age and comorbidity were consistently considered to impact interventions' effectiveness. Inequities were acknowledged to arise from within-country regional variations and individual economic status, but were not linked to (intersectional) individual societal positions such as sex and/or gender, sexuality, and/or religion. The results between European countries were heterogeneous. Current guidelines offer little insight into what works for whom. Policymakers and guideline developers should work with researchers, generating and translating evidence into policy.
在痴呆症护理中,护理提供者的循证指南常常涉及获得有效的心理社会干预措施的问题。然而,目前的指南是否考虑了可能影响干预效果的个人特征尚不清楚。本研究调查了欧洲的痴呆症护理指南是否以及在何种框架内阐述了什么是有效的干预措施以及对谁有效。对来自12个欧洲国家的47项指南进行了综述。内容分析聚焦于:(i)指南是否推荐了特定的心理社会干预措施,以及指南如何提及(ii)社会健康、(iii)社会定位的交叉点以及(iv)护理或结果方面的不公平现象。35项指南(74%)推荐了特定的心理社会干预措施。约一半的指南提及了社会健康和交叉性的某些方面。13项指南(28%)提及了不公平现象。社会健康并未被明确视为心理社会干预措施的一种机制。只有年龄和合并症被一致认为会影响干预效果。人们认识到不公平现象源于国内的地区差异和个人经济状况,但并未与性别和/或性取向、性倾向和/或宗教等(交叉性的)个人社会地位联系起来。欧洲国家之间的结果存在异质性。目前的指南对于什么对谁有效几乎没有提供什么见解。政策制定者和指南制定者应与研究人员合作,生成证据并将其转化为政策。