Factors influencing access to nonpharmacological interventions for <scp>community‐dwelling</scp> seniors with <scp>mild‐to‐moderate</scp> dementia: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT: Research has shown effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in improving or maintaining cognition, mood, functioning, self-efficacy and quality of life for persons with mild-to-moderate dementia (PWDs). These interventions are critical during the earlier stages of dementia. However, Canadian and international literature report underutilization of and difficulty accessing the interventions. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE: To our knowledge, this is the first review that explored factors influencing seniors' utilization of nonpharmacological interventions in the earlier stages of dementia. This review contributed to the discovery of unique factors such as PWDs' beliefs, fears, perceptions, and acceptability of nonpharmacological interventions and environmental influences on intervention provision. PWDs' intervention uptake may appear as a matter of personal choices related to individuals' knowledge, beliefs and perceptions. However, the analysis of the research evidence suggests that PWDs' choices are shaped by environmental factors such as formal and informal caregiver support, acceptability and accessibility of nonpharmacological interventions, dementia care workforce, community's attitudes towards dementia and funding. The complex interplay among factors highlights the importance of targeting health promotion strategies at both individuals and their environments. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The review findings feature opportunities for healthcare practitioners, including mental health nurses, in advocating for PWDs' evidence-informed decision-making and access to desired nonpharmacological treatments. Involvement of patients and families in care-planning through ongoing assessment of health and learning needs, as well as enablers and barriers to using interventions, continuing information provision, and personalized referrals to appropriate services can promote PWDs' rights to healthcare. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Despite the significance of nonpharmacological interventions in optimal management of mild-to-moderate dementia, it remains unclear in the literature how persons with mild-to-moderate dementia (PWDs) view, understand and access nonpharmacological interventions. AIM: The purpose of this review was to explore the extent and nature of evidence concerning factors that influence the use of nonpharmacological interventions for community-dwelling seniors with mild-to-moderate dementia. METHOD: An integrative review was undertaken following Toronto and Remington (A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review, 2020)'s instruction which expanded Torraco (Human Resource Development Review, 2016, 15, 404)'s and Whittemore and Knafl (Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2005, 52, 546)'s guidance. RESULTS: The review of 16 studies suggests that PWDs' use of nonpharmacological interventions is shaped by a complex interplay of various personal, interpersonal, organizational, community and political influences. DISCUSSION: The findings highlight the complex, interrelated relationships among multiple factors and subsequent limitations of behaviour-oriented health promotion strategies. To assist PWDs in making healthier choices, health promotion strategies need to direct attention to both individuals' behaviours and environmental conditions impacting the behaviours. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this review can inform multidisciplinary health practitioners' (including mental health nurses) practice with seniors living with mild-to-moderate dementia. We recommend actionable ways in which they can empower patients and their families in dementia management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".