4.6 Review

Agitation in dementia: concept clarification

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 526-536

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03613.x

关键词

agitation; concept clarification; dementia; literature review; nursing

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim.The aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of agitation in dementia through analysing definitions, critical attributes, components, boundaries, antecedents and consequences of agitation. Background.The concept of agitation is not well defined. In addition, there exists much confusion about the characteristics and boundaries of agitation, as well as the distinction between agitation and related concepts. Recently developed theoretical models for agitation in dementia require new interpretation and conceptualization of agitation. Methods.Morse's method of critical appraisal of the literature was used. In addition, some parts of Rodgers' evolutionary method were employed. Data were selected using six electronic databases and the key words 'agitation', 'agitated', 'dementia', 'demented' and 'Alzheimer'. The analysis included 86 empirical or theoretical papers and one book. Results.A transition from the observer's perspective to the patient's perspective in the interpretation of agitation was found. Five critical attributes of agitation in dementia were identified: excessive, inappropriate, repetitive, non-specific and observable. Patient factors, interpersonal factors, environmental factors and restraint were identified as precipitating antecedents. Mediating antecedents included discomfort, unmet need and misinterpretation. Consequences of agitation were identified at the levels of patient, caregiver and others. Conclusions.This transition in perspectives has important implications as it can change health providers' attitudes and responses to agitation and lead to patient-focused and individualized care. Researchers and clinicians are encouraged to avoid labelling agitated behaviour as 'disturbing behaviour'.

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

4.6
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