Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34899506›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2021

Benefits of Cultural Activities on People With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review.

Laia Delfa-Lobato, Joan Guàrdia-Olmos, Maria Feliu-Torruella

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Italian guidance on Dementia Day Care Centres: A position paper.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023
    Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Laia Delfa-LobatoFaculty of Geography and History, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Joan Guàrdia-OlmosDepartment of Social Psychology and Quantitative Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Maria Feliu-TorruellaDepartment of Applied Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Museums and cultural institutions are increasingly striving to respond to the interests and needs of the society that hosts them. This means, apart from other actions, that these institutions must be involved in the health and wellbeing of society, and the creation of cultural activities aimed at people with cognitive impairment, a group of individuals that is growing worldwide due to the aging of society and the increasing prevalence of dementia. The involved sectors are aware of the potential and benefits of activities for this population, even though there is much research to be conducted. To date, no systematic review has focused on the benefits of cultural activities for cognitively impaired people. This study aimed to explore the benefits of different modalities of cultural activities with evidence from 145 studies from various databases, which met the inclusion criteria. Significant improvements in general cognition, quality of life (QoL), emotional wellbeing, socialization, and communication were generally reported after interventions, with a reduction in depression symptoms. There was not enough evidence to prove memory, language, or daily functioning improvements attributable to cultural interventions. There were no significant reductions reported in apathy, sadness, agitation, or anxiety.

Indexed as

Alzheimer’s diseasearts and healthart therapycognitive impairmentcultural activitiesdementiasystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34899506
PMCPMC8656402

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.