Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40011198›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of geriatric psychiatry2025

Non-Pharmacological Interventions for People With Dementia Who Live Alone: A Systematic Review.

Sarah Polack, Georgia Bell, Barbora Silarova, Molly Hebditch, Alison Tingle, Andrew Sommerlad, Elena Portacolone, Kath Sykes, Naji Tabet

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Sarah PolackCentre for Dementia Studies, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7524-7396
Georgia BellCentre for Dementia Studies, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5005-1859
Barbora SilarovaCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2473-2527
Molly HebditchCentre for Dementia Studies, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5768-4827
Alison TingleCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0645-0462
Andrew SommerladDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8895-7055
Elena PortacoloneInstitute for Health & Aging (EP), University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2311-3836
Kath SykesNIHR Applied Research Collaboration Kent Surrey & Sussex/ Health Innovation Kent Surrey Sussex, Beehive, Gatwick, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6677-7731
Naji TabetCentre for Dementia Studies, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4054-3056

Funding

VARC CoreP30AG044281 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Louise C. Walter · 2013 to 2026
$19.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG044281NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Kent, Surrey, Sussex
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApproximately one third of people with dementia live on their own and they face an increased risk of unmet needs and loneliness. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe non-pharmacological interventions that have been evaluated for people with dementia living alone and to examine the effectiveness of these interventions.

methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, six databases were systematically searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Care online, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that reported on the impact or experience of an intervention for people with dementia living alone in the community (not long-term care) and that had been published since 2000 were included in the review. No restrictions were applied in terms of study design or outcome measures. Study risk of bias was assessed, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize findings.

resultsThirteen studies of 13 different interventions were included, grouped into five intervention categories: home-based dementia case/care management (n = 4), technology (n = 3), social (n = 3), cognitive (n = 2) and psychological (n = 1). There was one randomized controlled trial (RCT), and two economic evaluations that used data from RCTs. Most other studies were small-scale, and only two were evaluated to have low risk of bias. Most studies reported positive or mixed findings in terms of the intervention's impact on the person with dementia or aspects of feasibility. However, studies were heterogeneous in terms of intervention, study design, and outcomes.

conclusionsThis review of a limited body of research highlights the potential for interventions to support people with dementia who live alone. It also identifies key evidence gaps and the need for more robust and comparable research to better understand what works, why, for who, and how. Involving people with dementia who live alone in the design, implementation, and evaluation of these interventions will be crucial to ensure that their needs and preferences are met.

Indexed as

DementiaIndependent LivingHumansLonelinessdementiainterventionsliving alone

Identifiers

PMID40011198
PMCPMC11864918

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.