ReviewDementia (London, England)2022
Exploring outcome measures with cognitive stimulation therapies and how these relate to the experiences of people with dementia: A narrative literature review.
Review in Dementia (London, England), 2022. 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.
- Are board games useful for people with dementia? A preliminary study for a non-pharmacological intervention.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A feasibility and pilot study of a "lifelong learning" intervention for people with dementia.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
- Observations on strategies used by people with dementia to manage being assessed using validated measures: A pilot qualitative video analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- What is intended by the term "participation" and what does it mean to people living with dementia? A conceptual overview and directions for future research.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A narrative literature review was undertaken to consider the outcome measures used in research on cognitive stimulation therapy (CST), cognitive training (CT) and cognitive stimulation (CS) interventions. This review extends findings from previous reviews by including a broad range of study methodologies, both qualitative and quantitative, and explored whether participant experiences of taking part in the research are discussed. A database search identified 1261 articles matching the search criteria, with 29 included in this review. Studies tended to use the manualised CST model, with 11 other models identified. Randomised control trials were chosen as the most used method to explore impact. Across the studies, 65 different outcome measures were used with people with dementia, and only four studies used a qualitative approach. Little information is provided on the assessment process in terms of time taken, assessor, or of the experience of the person with dementia. There is heterogeneity of measures used, within and across domains, and number, and agreement or consistency of measures would provide greater comparability across CS studies. Gaps in reporting were noted on the detail of the assessment process and the experience of people with dementia taking part in this research.
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.