1
|
Hoe J, Profyri E, Kemp C, Manela M, Webster L, Anthony J, Costafreda S, Arrojo F, Souris H, Livingston G. Risk assessment for people living with dementia: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr 2024; 36:263-288. [PMID: 38053362 DOI: 10.1017/s1041610223004398] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This systematic review identified key components of risk assessment for people with dementia, examined attitudes toward risk identification and risk assessment, and appraised existing risk assessment tools. METHODS Systematic searches of five databases on two platforms (EBSCO, OVID) and gray literature databases (Open Grey, Base) were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion based on predetermined eligibility criteria and quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were tabulated and synthesized using thematic synthesis. RESULTS Our review found people with dementia, their family carers, and healthcare professionals differed in how risk is conceptualized, with views being shaped by media perceptions, personal experiences, socio-cultural influences, dementia knowledge, and dementia severity. We found that mobilization (causing falls inside and getting lost outside) is the most frequently identified risk factor. Our findings show people with dementia are generally risk-tolerant, while healthcare professionals may adopt risk-averse approaches because of organizational requirements. We found factors that disrupt daily routines, living and caring arrangements, medication management, and unclear care pathways contribute toward adverse risk events. We discovered that most studies about risk and risk assessment scales did not consider insight of the person with dementia into risks although this is important for the impact of a risk. No risk instrument identified had sufficient evidence that it was useful. CONCLUSION Accurate risk assessment and effective communication strategies that include the perspectives of people with dementia are needed to enable risk-tolerant practice. No risk instrument to date was shown to be widely acceptable and useful in practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juanita Hoe
- Geller Institute of Ageing and Memory, University of West London, London, UK
- School of Health Sciences, University of London, London, UK
| | - Elena Profyri
- School of Health Sciences, University of London, London, UK
| | - Charlotte Kemp
- School of Health Sciences, University of London, London, UK
| | - Monica Manela
- UCL Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, London, UK
| | - Lucy Webster
- UCL Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, London, UK
- Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK
| | - Justine Anthony
- School of Health Sciences, University of London, London, UK
- School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, UK
| | - Sergi Costafreda
- UCL Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, London, UK
- Camden, and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, London, UK
| | - Frank Arrojo
- Alzheimer's Society Research Network, Alzheimer's Society, London, UK
| | - Helen Souris
- Camden, and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, London, UK
- Dementia Clinical Network, NHS England and NHS Improvement (London Region, London, UK
| | - Gill Livingston
- UCL Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, London, UK
- Camden, and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Profyri E, Leung P, Huntley J, Orgeta V. Effectiveness of treatments for people living with severe dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials. Ageing Res Rev 2022; 82:101758. [PMID: 36243355 PMCID: PMC10580243 DOI: 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101758] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Revised: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 10/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the disease, evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments for people with severe dementia remains limited. AIMS To systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence. METHOD We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online clinical trial registers up to January 2022, for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) in people living with severe dementia. Quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors. RESULTS A total of 30 trials met our inclusion criteria of which 14 evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and 16 evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention. Pharmacological treatments: Meta-analyses indicated that pharmacological treatments (donepezil: 10 mg, 5 mg; galantamine: 24 mg; memantine: 10 mg) are associated with better outcomes compared to placebo for: severity of symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.48; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.26; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and clinical impression of change (Relative Risk (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacological treatments were also more likely to reduce mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Non-pharmacological treatments: Five trials were included in the meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions (multi-sensory stimulation, needs assessment, and activities-based interventions); results showed that non-pharmacological interventions may reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia compared to usual care (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS There is moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological treatments may decrease disease severity and improve function for people with severe dementia. Non-pharmacological treatments are probably effective in reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms but the quality of evidence remains low. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence for other outcomes and for developing service-user informed interventions for this under-served group.
Collapse
|