ArticleBMJ open2021
Impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of long-term care residents: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Nursing team proxemic mapping in the hemotherapy space.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2025Article
- The Use of Alternative Rooms in Forensic and Regular Psychiatric Units: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The combined effect of physical activity and fruit and vegetable intake on decreasing cognitive decline in older Taiwanese adults.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and purposeResidents in long-term care exhibit diminishing senses (hearing, sight, taste, smell or touch). The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the impact of sensory interventions on the quality of life of residents living in long-term care settings.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Seven databases (Medline (Ovid), PubMed (non-Medline-Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Ageline, PsycINFO (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 1 December 2020) were searched. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for sensory interventions using a two-step process. Eligible studies underwent data extraction and results were synthesised descriptively.
resultsWe screened 5551 titles and abstracts. A total of 52 articles met our inclusion criteria. Some interventions involved only one sense: hearing (n=3), sight (n=12), smell (n=4) and touch (n=15). Other interventions involved multiple senses (n=18). We grouped the interventions into 16 categories (music programmes, environmental white noise, bright light interventions, visual stimulations, olfactory stimulations, massages, therapeutic touch, tactile stimulations, physical activity plus night-time programmes, pet therapies, various stimuli interventions, Snoezelen rooms, motor and multisensory based strategies, Namaste care, environmental modifications and expressive touch activities).
conclusionThis preliminary review summarised some of the available sensory interventions that will help inform a series of future systematic reviews on each of the specific interventions. The evidence-based knowledge for sensory interventions will also inform a future audit programme for assessing the presence of sensory interventions in long-term care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.