Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27531724›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Interprofessional education in the care of people diagnosed with dementia and their carers: a systematic review.

Marcus Jackson, Ferruccio Pelone, Scott Reeves, Anne Marie Hassenkamp, Claire Emery, Kumud Titmarsh, Nan Greenwood

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Critical Workforce Gaps in Dementia Education and Training.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors.

Marcus JacksonFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Ferruccio PeloneFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Scott ReevesFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Anne Marie HassenkampFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Claire EmeryFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Kumud TitmarshFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Nan GreenwoodFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University and St George's, University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis systematic review is linked to the multifaceted social, economic and personal challenges of dementia and the international recognition of the value of interprofessional education (IPE) and its influence on health and social care outcomes. This review therefore aimed to identify, describe and evaluate the impact of IPE interventions on health and social care practitioners (prequalification and postqualification) understanding of dementia, the quality of care for people with dementia and support for their carers.

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, 9 databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Healthcare Management Information Consortium, ERIC and British Education Index). Narrative analysis of the findings was undertaken.

designSystematic review.

results6 studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. The majority of studies were conducted in North America. Participants in 4 studies were health and social care practitioners caring for people with dementia, whereas the remaining studies focused on training graduate or undergraduate students. Diverse IPE activities with varying content, delivery mode and duration were reported. Although some studies reported more positive attitudes to interprofessional working as a result of the interventions, none reported benefits to patients or carers. The quality of the included studies varied. Overall, the evidence for the reported outcomes was considered weak.

conclusionsThis review identified 6 studies describing IPE interventions intended to improve collaborative knowledge, skills, interprofessional practice and organisational awareness of dementia and dementia care. The small number of studies, their varied nature, scope and settings combined with poor quality of evidence limits our understanding of the effectiveness of IPE on the care and support of people with dementia and their carers. Further research is required to develop the evidence base and provide robust studies to inform IPE development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014015075.

Indexed as

CaregiversInterprofessional RelationsDementiaHealth PersonnelHumansAlzheimer's DiseaseMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27531724
PMCPMC5013417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.