ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2025
A scoping review of outcome measures for people living with dementia and family supporters to evaluate Recovery College dementia courses.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recovery Colleges (RC/RCs) aim to promote personal recovery through co-produced courses, grounded in the CHIME (Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning, Empowerment) framework. The DiSCOVERY research programme noted that RC dementia courses may offer a person-centred approach to post-diagnostic dementia care. However, the lack of validated outcome measures for this context presents a challenge in evaluating RCs' effectiveness. This scoping review examines the potential outcome measures for evaluating the impact of RC dementia courses. Methods: The review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework, searching for eligible papers across six databases related to dementia and the CHIME strengths-based approach. Instruments relating to personal recovery and positive psychology for people with dementia or their family supporters were included. Measures of cognition, clinical symptoms, or 'negative constructs' (e.g., burden) were excluded. DiSCOVERY stakeholder groups (people with dementia and clinicians) met to collaboratively identify meaningful domains and relevant measures. Results: Fourteen instruments relating to hope, resilience, self-efficacy, empowerment, and coping were identified. Stakeholders of people living with dementia endorsed domains of empowerment, resilience, and hope. No single instrument captured the range of outcomes that underlie the concepts of the RC dementia course. Discussion: This study contributes to the limited literature on instruments for the evaluation of concepts underlying RC dementia courses. Findings suggest a need for adaptation and further validation of existing measures, to address responsiveness, interpretability, and the inclusion of domains related to recovery. Future research on recovery in the context of dementia should involve developing or adapting new measures, conducting feasibility studies, and exploring cultural sensitivity for diverse populations.
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.