Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25967742›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2015

Evidence of what works to support and sustain care at home for people with dementia: a literature review with a systematic approach.

Alison Dawson, Alison Bowes, Fiona Kelly, Kari Velzke, Richard Ward

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Noninferiority of Online Versus In-Person Training for Health Professionals Delivering the COPE Dementia Care Program in PACE Settings.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry. Open science, education, and practice · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alison DawsonSchool of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. a.s.f.dawson@stir.ac.uk.
Alison BowesSchool of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. a.m.bowes@stir.ac.uk.
Fiona KellyBournemouth University Dementia Institute (BUDI), Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, BH12, UK. fkelly@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Kari VelzkeSchool of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. k.d.velzke@stir.ac.uk.
Richard WardSchool of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK. richard.ward1@stir.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis paper synthesises research evidence about the effectiveness of services intended to support and sustain people with dementia to live at home, including supporting carers. The review was commissioned to support an inspection regime and identifies the current state of scientific knowledge regarding appropriate and effective services in relation to a set of key outcomes derived from Scottish policy, inspection practice and standards. However, emphases on care at home and reduction in the use of institutional long term care are common to many international policy contexts and welfare regimes.

methodsSystematic searches of relevant electronic bibliographic databases crossing medical, psychological and social scientific literatures (CINAHL, IngentaConnect, Medline, ProQuest, PsychINFO and Web of Science) in November 2012 were followed by structured review and full-text evaluation processes, the latter using methodology-appropriate quality assessment criteria drawing on established protocols.

resultsOf 131 publications evaluated, 56 were assessed to be of 'high' quality, 62 of 'medium' quality and 13 of 'low' quality. Evaluations identified weaknesses in many published accounts of research, including lack of methodological detail and failure to evidence conclusions. Thematic analysis revealed multiple gaps in the evidence base, including in relation to take-up and use of self-directed support by people with dementia, use of rapid response teams and other multidisciplinary approaches, use of technology to support community-dwelling people with dementia, and support for people without access to unpaid or informal support.

conclusionsIn many areas, policy and practice developments are proceeding on a limited evidence base. Key issues affecting substantial numbers of existing studies include: poorly designed and overly narrowly focused studies; variability and uncertainty in outcome measurement; lack of focus on the perspectives of people with dementia and supporters; and failure to understanding the complexities of living with dementia, and of the kinds of multifactorial interventions needed to provide holistic and effective support. Weaknesses in the evidence base present challenges both to practitioners looking for guidance on how best to design and deliver evidence-based services to support people living with dementia in the community and their carers and to those charged with the inspection of services.

Indexed as

AgedCaregiversDementiaHome Care ServicesHumansIndependent LivingOutcome Assessment, Health CareSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID25967742
PMCPMC4465454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.