4.4 Review

Knowledge evaluation instruments for dementia caregiver education programs: A scoping review

期刊

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 397-413

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ggi.13901

关键词

caregivers; dementia; evaluation; instruments; knowledge

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P30 AG059294] Funding Source: Medline
  2. ACL HHS [U48DP005000] Funding Source: Medline
  3. CDC HHS [U48/DP005000-01S7] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Alzheimer's Foundation of America Funding Source: Medline
  5. NCCDPHP CDC HHS [U48 DP005000] Funding Source: Medline
  6. Arnold School of Public Health Graduate Scholar in Aging Award Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the increase in our older adult population, there is a need for dementia training for informal and formal dementia caregivers. The objective of this scoping study is to assess dementia knowledge instruments utilized in educational programs and interventions intended for formal and informal dementia caregivers. Scoping review methodology was used to search PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science with tailored database search terms. The search yielded 8101 results, with 35 studies meeting inclusion. Studies were conducted in eight countries, had varying study designs (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] = 9, non-RCTs = 6, one-group study design = 20) and utilized previously published (19) and author developed (16) instruments. Furthermore, the studies were internationally diverse, conducted in the United States (n = 18), Australia (n = 7), UK (n = 3), China (n = 2), Canada (n = 2), Taiwan (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1) and multi-country (n = 1). Only two studies focused on minority populations. While author-developed instruments may be more relevant and timesaving, studies should strive to validate instruments or use previously published instruments to help standardize findings across studies and understand better the effects of educational programs on caregiver knowledge. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 397-413.

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

4.4
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