Spiritual Support for People Affected by Dementia: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a life-limiting illness, dementia requires a holistic approach to care, where spiritual support plays a crucial role in helping individuals and their caregivers find meaning and solace. Our aim was to systematically map the research conducted on psychosocial interventions developed to provide spiritual support for people living with dementia and their caregivers from diagnosis and across the disease trajectory. A scoping review was conducted to explore the breadth of research on 'spiritual support' in dementia care, encompassing interventions, service delivery models, programs, toolkits, approaches, and activities. Electronic databases (MEDLINE (Pubmed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library) from inception until February 2025. References of included papers were hand searched. The quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The findings were interpreted jointly with seven people with dementia and six family caregivers. Twelve papers met the eligibility criteria, reporting on interventions for people with dementia, caregivers, staff skills, care environments, and inclusive worship. Most studies were exploratory, with only one RCT. Studies originated from the USA (n = 4), Europe (n = 4), Australia (n = 2), Taiwan (n = 1), and Canada (n = 1). Eight focused on community settings, three on residential care, and one included both. Six studies involved people with dementia: four with mild to moderate, one with moderate to advanced, and one with mixed severity. Outcomes were inconsistent and there was a lack of longitudinal observational studies to track changes over time. Spiritual support should be personalised and multifaceted, incorporating creative activities and tailored interventions that reflect individual preferences and diverse backgrounds. Future research should employ longitudinal observational and intervention designs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".