MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941003325 · doi:10.1002/gps.5127

Effects of nonpharmacological interventions on functioning of people living with dementia at home: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

2019· review· en· W2941003325 on OpenAlexaff
Iona Scott, Claudia Cooper, Monica Leverton, Alex Burton, Jules Beresford‐Dent, Kenneth Rockwood, Laurie T. Butler, Penny Rapaport

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersAlzheimer's Society
KeywordsPsychological interventionDementiaActivities of daily livingRandomized controlled trialChecklistGerontologyMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationIntervention (counseling)CognitionPsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Slowing functional decline could enable people living with dementia to live for longer and more independently in their own homes. We aimed to update previous syntheses examining the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing functional decline (activities of daily living, activity-specific physical functioning, or function-specific goal attainment) in people living in their own homes with dementia. METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases from January 2012 to May 2018; two researchers independently rated risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fitting predetermined inclusion criteria using a checklist; we narratively synthesised findings, prioritising studies judged to have a lower risk of bias. RESULTS: Twenty-nine papers (describing 26 RCTs) met eligibility criteria, of which we judged 13 RCTs to have a lower risk of bias. Study interventions were evaluated in four groups: physical exercise, occupational, multicomponent, and cognition-oriented interventions. Four out of 13 RCTs reported functional ability as a primary outcome. In studies judged to have a lower risk of bias, in-home tailored exercise, individualised cognitive rehabilitation, and in-home activities-focussed occupational therapy significantly reduced functional decline relative to control groups in individual studies. There was consistent evidence from studies at low risk of bias that group-based exercise and reminiscence therapies were ineffective at reducing functional decline. CONCLUSION: We found no replicated evidence of intervention effectiveness in decreasing functional decline. Interventions associated with slower functional decline in individual trials have been individually delivered and tailored to the needs of the person with dementia. This is consistent with previous findings. Future intervention trials should prioritise these approaches.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.013
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geriatric PsychiatrySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207