Staff Training Interventions to Prevent or Reduce Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Nursing Home Residents: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nursing home (NH) staff mention knowledge deficits regarding the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSDs) in residents with neurocognitive disorders (NCDs). Staff training therefore appears to be necessary. However, existing evidence on best training practices and their outcomes remains scattered. This systematic review aimed to (1) identify the best clinical practices and theoretical bases of staff training interventions on BPSD management in NHs and (2) summarize the effects of these interventions on resident and staff outcomes. METHODS: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted. Two nurse researchers independently searched nine electronic databases to identify studies on the efficacy of staff training interventions aimed at BPSD management in NHs, on a variety of resident and staff outcomes. The search was conducted for articles published between 1996 and 2022, using selected keywords, MeSH terms, and predefined eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was assessed using JBI checklists. RESULTS: Overall, 39 studies in 47 articles were included. Ten categories of trainings were identified, of which three demonstrated the most promising results on both residents and staff: (1) structured protocols and models, (2) person-centred bathing, and (3) communication techniques. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was generally weak. Issues with intervention feasibility and reproducibility were also noted. CONCLUSION: Training interventions incorporating structured protocols and models, person-centred bathing, and communication techniques are associated with better staff and resident outcomes. However, there is a strong need for high-quality research to strengthen existing evidence and ensure feasibility and reproducibility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".