ReviewBMJ open2021
Sustaining community-based interventions for people affected by dementia long term: the SCI-Dem realist review.
Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telerehabilitation Interventions That Improve Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Realist Review.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Review
- Article
- Knowledge Translation Interventions for Youth Health Care Transitions: Protocol for a Realist Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Nurse staffing models that rely on employment of temporary nurses: A realist review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Quality and patient safety surveillance systems in healthcare settings: a rapid realist review.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Therapeutic empathy in remote consultations in general practice: a realist review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Multimorbidity research in dementia: it's time to shift to a person-centred approach.Frontiers in dementia · 2026Article
- How can funding for nature-based programmes impact health inequalities? A realist protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Collaborative risk assessment and management planning in secure mental health services in England: protocol for a realist review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Development and Implementation of a Novel Approach to Scaling the Meeting Centre Intervention for People Living with Dementia and Their Unpaid Carers, Using an Adapted Version of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Implementing and sustaining dementia care coordinators across integrated care systems: a realist evaluation.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Dementia Friendly communities (DFCs) to improve quality of life for people with dementia: a realist review.BMC geriatrics · 2024Review
- Operationalising the Recovery College model with people living with dementia: a realist review.Aging & mental health · 2024Review
- Profiles of healthcare use of persons living with dementia: A population-based cohort study.Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2024Article
- Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Review
- Understanding the Impacts of Online Mental Health Peer Support Forums: Realist Synthesis.JMIR mental health · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCommunity-based support for people with earlier-stage dementia and their care partners, such as regularly meeting groups and activities, can play an important part in postdiagnostic care. Typically delivered piecemeal in the UK, by a variety of agencies with inconsistent funding, provision is fragmented and many such interventions struggle to continue after only a short start-up period. This realist review investigates what can promote or hinder such interventions in being able to sustain long term.
methodsKey sources of evidence were gathered using formal searches of electronic databases and grey literature, together with informal search methods such as citation tracking. No restrictions were made on article type or study design; only data pertaining to regularly meeting, ongoing, community-based interventions were included. Data were extracted, assessed, organised and synthesised and a realist logic of analysis applied to trace context-mechanism-outcome configurations as part an overall programme theory. Consultation with stakeholders, involved with a variety of such interventions, informed this process throughout.
resultsAbility to continually get and keep members; staff and volunteers; the support of other services and organisations; and funding/income were found to be critical, with multiple mechanisms feeding into these suboutcomes, sensitive to context. These included an emphasis on socialising and person-centredness; lowering stigma and logistical barriers; providing support and recognition for personnel; networking, raising awareness and sharing with other organisations, while avoiding conflict; and skilled financial planning and management.
conclusionsThis review presents a theoretical model of what is involved in the long-term sustainability of community-based interventions. Alongside the need for longer-term funding and skilled financial management, key factors include the need for stigma-free, person-centred provision, sensitive to members' diversity and social needs, as well as the need for a robust support network including the local community, health and care services. Challenges were especially acute for small scale and rural groups.
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.