Dataset Information

Effectiveness of interventions for people living with dementia and their carers in Chinese communities: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

As the largest and most rapidly ageing population, Chinese people are now the major driver of the continued growth in dementia prevalence globally. The need for evidence-based interventions in Chinese communities is urgent. Although a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for dementia have been trialled in Chinese populations, the evidence has not been systematically synthesised. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to map out the interventions for people living with dementia and their carers in Chinese communities worldwide and compare the effectiveness of these interventions.

Methods and analysis

This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. We will search Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang DATA) and English bibliographical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODelling Outcome and cost impacts of interventions for DEMentia (MODEM) Toolkit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), complemented by hand searching of reference lists. We will include studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment in Chinese populations, using a randomised controlled trial design, and published between January 2008 and June 2020. We will use a standardised form to extract data and Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Collected data will be fully interpreted with narrative synthesis and analysed using pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool intervention effects where sufficient information is available. We will perform subgroup analysis and meta-regression to explore potential reasons for heterogeneity.

Ethics and dissemination

No formal ethics approval is required for this protocol. The findings will facilitate the development of studies on interventions for dementia and timely inform dementia policymaking and practice. Planned dissemination channels include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, public events and websites.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019134135.

SUBMITTER: Shi C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8372806 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDementia 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.AimsTo systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence.MethodWe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsThere 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.

Project description:BackgroundJoint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care.MethodsThis multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person's home. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Included participants were community resident people with mild to moderate dementia (DSM-IV), who had a relative or other care-giver in regular contact, to act as informant and willing and able to participate in intervention. 71% carers were spouses. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5)were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control; 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks; monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers. Primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia (QoL-AD), psychological distress for the carer (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included: autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia; carer stress for the carer; mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both.ResultsThe intention to treat analysis (ANCOVA) identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes (self-reported QoL-AD mean difference 0.07 (-1.21 to 1.35), F = 0.48, p = 0.53). Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a General Health Questionnaire-28 sub-scale at the ten month end-point (mean difference 1.25 (0.25 to 2.26), F = 8.28, p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested improved autobiographical memory, quality of life and relationship quality for people with dementia attending more reminiscence sessions, however carers attending more groups showed increased care-giving stress. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Potential limitations of the study include less than optimal attendance at the group sessions--only 57% of participants attended at least half of the intervention sessions over the 10 month period, and a higher rate of study withdrawal in the control group.ConclusionsThis trial does not support the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups. Possible beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned are offset by raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN42430123.

Project description:BackgroundOptimal management of hypertension in people with dementia may involve deprescribing antihypertensives. Understanding differing treatment priorities is important to enable patient-centred care. This study explored preferences for antihypertensive deprescribing amongst people living with dementia, carers and clinicians.MethodsDiscrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a stated preference survey method, underpinned by economic theory. A DCE was conducted, and respondents completed 12 labelled choice-questions, each presenting a status quo (continuing antihypertensives) and antihypertensive deprescribing option. The questions included six attributes, including pill burden, and event risks for stroke, myocardial infarction, increased blood pressure, cognitive decline, falls.ResultsOverall, 112 respondents (33 carers, 19 people living with dementia, and 60 clinicians) completed the survey. For people with dementia, lower pill burden increased preferences for deprescribing (odds ratio (OR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.08-3.52). Increased stroke risk (for each additional person out of 100 having a stroke) decreased the likelihood of deprescribing for geriatricians (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92) and non-geriatrician clinicians (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86), and carers (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88). Increased myocardial infarction risk decreased preferences for deprescribing for non-geriatricians (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and carers (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98). Avoiding cognitive decline increased preferences for deprescribing for geriatricians (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33) and carers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48). Avoiding falls increased preferences for deprescribing for clinicians (geriatricians (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.29); non-geriatricians (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.25)). Other attributes did not significantly influence respondent preferences.ConclusionsAntihypertensive deprescribing preferences differ amongst people with dementia, carers and clinicians. The study emphasises the importance of shared decision-making within the deprescribing process.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of dementia is increasing, and there are many associated problems that family members face as informal carers, including emotional, physical, and financial difficulties. There are benefits for a person with dementia to live at home for as long as possible, and therefore, supporting their informal carers is crucial. The growing interest in supporting carers through internet-based interventions is evidenced by the volume of systematic reviews on this topic. It is now appropriate to systematically examine this body of work and provide an overview of the literature.ObjectiveThis umbrella review aimed to identify the most effective internet-based intervention content and delivery method to support those caring for someone with dementia living in the community.MethodsPsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched for systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of web-based interventions for informal carers of people with dementia. A total of 3 reviewers extracted data and evaluated the quality of the papers. To ascertain the extent to which the systematic reviews reported on the same evidence, the proportion of overlap between their included studies was calculated. Qualitative research findings were extracted and reported.ResultsA total of 21 papers were included in the study. The quality of the review papers was mainly rated as low to moderate, and 10% (2/21) of papers were of high quality. The findings suggest that multicomponent interventions were the most effective in supporting carers. These included combinations of cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation strategies, educational resources, and online support groups. Interventions that were delivered on the web but included sessions with a personal element, such as telephone contact, showed the best results. When comparing the studies reviewed in all the review papers, a moderate overlap was noted. However, when comparing individual reviews with each other, they showed a high overlap of the included studies.ConclusionsMixed delivery methods and intervention content showed the most effective results in supporting those caring for people with dementia. However, many papers do not separate the results for differing intervention contents or delivery; this needs to be considered when drawing conclusions. There was an overlap among the studies included in the reviews. This suggests a lack of current research on the effectiveness of web-based interventions for people caring for a person with dementia. There was also a lack of consistency in the outcome measures across all papers. Future studies can involve updating research on the effectiveness of these interventions while distinguishing between different intervention types, thus creating guidelines for the use of standardized measures to enable comparisons of intervention effects and improve the scientific quality of the overall research.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021241559; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=241559.