Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37747616›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics - open2023

Cost-Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Interventions for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations and a Review of Reviews.

Gillian Eaglestone, Evdoxia Gkaintatzi, Harmony Jiang, Charlotte Stoner, Rosana Pacella, Paul McCrone

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gillian EaglestoneInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK. g.l.eaglestone@greenwich.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9860-8679
Evdoxia GkaintatziInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2025-6081
Harmony JiangInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6167-8497
Charlotte StonerInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1536-4347
Rosana PacellaInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9742-1957
Paul McCroneInstitute for Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7001-4502
University of Greenwich · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDementia prevalence is increasing, with no cure at present. Drug therapies have potential side effects and risk of mortality. People with dementia are frequently offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.

aimsThe aims were to review published economic evaluations of community and nursing home non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess the usefulness of these evaluations for decision making in health services, for use by policy and local and national decision makers.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) of economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis. EXCLUSIONS: interventions for dementia prevention/early detection/end of life care. Databases searched: Academic Search Premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 1 January 2011-11 May 2023. Reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

resultsThe review included 37 economic evaluations and four reviews worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multicomponent, assistive technology and other (specialist dementia care, group living, home care vs care home). The intervention with the strongest evidence of cost-effectiveness was maintenance cognitive stimulation therapy. Case management, occupational therapy and dementia care management also showed good evidence of cost-effectiveness.

conclusionMore economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency of methods and outcome measures. This could improve local and national decision makers' confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.

Identifiers

PMID37747616
PMCPMC10721583
OpenAlexW4387002075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.