SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022
A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring resilience for Chinese-speaking populations: a systematic review of Chinese resilience scales.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Assessing needs and goals of dementia caregivers: development of the COPE-ING measure.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Predicting Healthcare Workload in Pediatric Home Hospitalization: The Role of Patient Complexity and Family Participation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- The psychometric properties of a new outcome measure of resilience for people living with dementia: The Bangor Dementia Resilience Scale.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- A scoping review of outcome measures for people living with dementia and family supporters to evaluate Recovery College dementia courses.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Review
- A conceptualization and psychometric evaluation of positive psychological outcome measures used in adolescents and young adults living with HIV: A mixed scoping and systematic review.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Influence of loss- and restoration-oriented stressors on grief in times of COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Development of an item pool for a patient reported outcome measure of resilience for people living with dementia.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2023Article
- Dynamics of Interaction among Professionals, Informal Supporters, and Family Caregivers of People with Dementia along the Dementia Care Pathway: A Nationwide Survey in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychometrically sound resilience outcome measures are essential to establish how health and care services or interventions can enhance the resilience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers. This paper systematically reviews the literature to identify studies that administered a resilience measurement scale with PLWD and/or their carers and examines the psychometric properties of these measures. Electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched, and an international network contacted to identify peer-reviewed journal articles. Two authors independently extracted data. They critically reviewed the measurement properties from the available psychometric data in the studies, using a standardised checklist adapted for purpose. Fifty-one studies were included in the final review, which applied nine different resilience measures, eight developed in other populations and one developed for dementia carers in Thailand. None of the measures were developed for use with people living with dementia. The majority of studies (N = 47) focussed on dementia carers, three studies focussed on people living with dementia and one study measured both carers and the person with dementia. All the studies had missing information regarding the psychometric properties of the measures as applied in these two populations. Nineteen studies presented internal consistency data, suggesting seven of the nine measures demonstrate acceptable reliability in these new populations. There was some evidence of construct validity, and twenty-eight studies hypothesised effects a priori (associations with other outcome measure/demographic data/differences in scores between relevant groups) which were partially supported. The other studies were either exploratory or did not specify hypotheses. This limited evidence does not necessarily mean the resilience measure is not suitable, and we encourage future users of resilience measures in these populations to report information to advance knowledge and inform further reviews. All the measures require further psychometric evaluation in both these populations. The conceptual adequacy of the measures as applied in these new populations was questionable. Further research to understand the experience of resilience for people living with dementia and carers could establish the extent current measures -which tend to measure personal strengths -are relevant and comprehensive, or whether further work is required to establish a new resilience outcome measure.
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.