4.2 Review

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonpharmacological Interventions for Moderate to Severe Dementia

期刊

PSYCHIATRY INVESTIGATION
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 325-335

出版社

KOREAN NEUROPSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.30773/pi.2019.02.11.2

关键词

Dementia; Nonpharmacological intervention; Activities of daily living; Depression; Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia

资金

  1. National Institute of Dementia of Korea [NIDR-1703-0018]
  2. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI09C1379 (A092077)]
  3. KyungPook National University IACT grant - Korea government (MSIT) (Humancare Contents Dvelopment)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Due to limited efficacy of medications, non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) are frequently co-administered to people with moderate to severe dementia (PWMSD). This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of NPI on activities of daily living (ADL), behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), and cognition and quality of life (QoL) of PWMSD. Methods A literature search was conducted in the following databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Medline, CIHNAL, PsycINFO, KoreaMED, KMbase, and KISS. We conducted a meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials and used the generic inverse variance method with a fixed-effects model to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD). The protocol had been registered (CRD42017 058020). Results Ten randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria of the current meta-analysis. NPI were effective in improving ADL [SMD=0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.11-0.45] and reducing depression (SMD=-0.44, 95% CI=-0.70--0.19). However, NPI were not effective in reducing agitation, anxiety, or overall, or improving cognitive function. In a subgroup analysis, music therapy was effective in reducing overall BPSD (SMD=-0.52, 95% CI=-0.90--0.13). Conclusion Albeit the number of studies was limited, NPI improved ADL and depression in PWMSD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据