Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36402942›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022

A systematic review and psychometric evaluation of resilience measurement scales for people living with dementia and their carers.

Gill Windle, Catherine MacLeod, Katherine Algar-Skaife, Joshua Stott, Claire Waddington, Paul M Camic, Mary Pat Sullivan, Emilie Brotherhood, Sebastian Crutch

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Gill WindleAgeing and Dementia @ Bangor, Dementia Services Development Centre (DSDC), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK. g.windle@bangor.ac.uk.
Catherine MacLeodAgeing and Dementia @ Bangor, Dementia Services Development Centre (DSDC), School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Katherine Algar-SkaifeDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science (INB), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Joshua StottDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Claire Waddington4Dementia Research Centre, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Paul M Camic4Dementia Research Centre, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Mary Pat SullivanFaculty of Education and Professional Studies, School of Social Work, Nipissing University, North Bay, ON, Canada.
Emilie Brotherhood4Dementia Research Centre, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.
Sebastian Crutch4Dementia Research Centre, Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CaregiversDementiaHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsCarerDementiaEvaluationOutcome measureResilienceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36402942
PMCPMC9675235

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.