MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1796512874 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2013-607

The best evidence for assisted bathing of older people with dementia: a comprehensive systematic review

2013· article· en· W1796512874 sur OpenAlexaff
Rie Konno, Cindy Stern, Heather Gibb

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Établissements canadiensBC Studies
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBathingDementiaSystematic reviewPsychological interventionMedicineMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)InstitutionalisationIntervention (counseling)GerontologyPsychiatryClinical psychologyPsychologyDiseasePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Agitated behaviours related to dementia are commonly found in aged care. These behaviours are the major cause of stress and burden for caregivers and often result in institutionalisation of family members with dementia. Despite the high prevalence and the very real impact that agitated behaviours have on caregivers' psychological and physical well-being, to date no systematic reviews have been published concerning the best management approach for agitated behaviours during assisted bathing for older adults experiencing dementia. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to examine the best available evidence concerning how to minimise agitated behaviours in older adults with dementia being assisted with bathing. Inclusion criteria Types of participants Studies of older adults with dementia requiring assisted bathing from nurses, formal care staff or family caregivers were considered for inclusion in this systematic review. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest The quantitative component considered interventions aiming to minimise agitated/aggressive behaviours during assisted bathing. The qualitative component considered phenomena related to assisted bathing of older adults with dementia and the textual component considered supplemental evidence to both components. Types of studies The quantitative component included experimental and quasi-experimental studies while the qualitative component considered any qualitative study methodology. Types of outcomes The outcome measures in the quantitative component included frequency and severity of agitated/aggressive behaviours. Search strategy The search aimed to identify both published and unpublished studies from 1990 to April 2011. Only papers published in the English language were included. The searched major databases were MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Review, JBI Library of Systematic Reviews. The grey literature search was conducted using Conference Proceedings, Dissertation International, TRIP, Mednar, Google Scholar, Google and websites of professional bodies in the aged care field. A standardised three-step search strategy was used. Methodological quality Methodological quality of included papers was assessed by two independent reviewers. Standardised critical appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information were utilised. Methodological quality of included quantitative studies ranged from moderate to poor and the qualitative studies ranged from moderate to high quality. The textual papers were generally of high quality. Data collection Standardised data extraction tools derived from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information were utilised. Data synthesis Due to the existence of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, the quantitative data were synthesised using a narrative approach. The qualitative data and textual data were synthesised using appropriate software from the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information. Results The review included five quantitative studies, two qualitative studies and eight textual opinion papers. The identified quantitative evidence supports using the person-centred showering approach, towel bath/thermal bath and preferred music of older adults. The qualitative evidence emphasised concepts including safety and retaining a sense of dignity and control of patients, and relevant assessment skills of caregivers. The textual evidence addressed the shift from custodial discourse to a creative and therapeutic person-centred approach, and a safe and private bathing environment. Conclusions All quantitative, qualitative and textual evidence encouraged the introduction of a person-centred showering approach for assisting the bathing of older adults with dementia. Implications for practice The use of the person-centred showering approach, towel bath/thermal bath and preferred music of older adults are recommended. Caregivers should have relevant assessment skills of triggers to agitation and good communication skills. A flexible and creative care plan and organisational supports are necessary. Implications for research Further controlled trials are required to determine the effectiveness of various bathing methods, alternative bathing products and any other interventions to improve the experiences of both people with dementia and caregivers who bathe them. However, due to ethical issues, it may not be realistic to conduct rigorous controlled trials in this field of aged care practice. Instead, high quality interpretive studies that can document and evaluate the practical knowledge and experiences of caregivers concerning assisted bathing of older adults with dementia are needed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,722
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,351

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,090
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,326 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchTravaux en français237 207