ReviewBMJ open2025
Scales to measure core outcomes for the quality of dementia care in home or residential aged care facilities: a rapid review.
Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measures used to evaluate psychosocial interventions in dementia care: A narrative review and synthesis.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Core Outcome Measures for Improving Dementia Care (COM-IC) project aims to develop a core outcome set for measuring the quality of care provided to people living with dementia in routine care settings. In a previous stage of the project, 17 core outcomes were identified. This study is the next step, aiming to review the literature to identify existing or recommended, validated scales for measuring the identified core outcomes.
designA rapid review DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Clarivate) and Scopus (Elsevier) were searched. Searches were completed on 12 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed systematic reviews or original validation studies of scales measuring dignity; engagement in advance care planning; pain; quality of life; feeling safe and secure; emotional well-being; diagnosis of dementia; behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; the importance of relationships; meaningful activities; hygiene and comfort; resource utilisation and safety incidents for people living with dementia were included. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews or original validation studies of the scales to measure informal carers' quality of life, their educational opportunities, formal carers' morale and dementia-specific qualifications were also included. All studies were required to have been conducted among people living with dementia or carers, as appropriate, and to have full texts available in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data on the scale's name, the number of subscales, subscales' names, the number of items, response options, scoring, estimated time to complete the scale, recommended frequency of data collection and the setting where the scale was first validated were extracted. Findings are presented in figures, tables and narrative texts.
resultsA total of 88 validated scales were identified. No scales measuring dignity, engagement in advance care planning, feeling safe and secure, hygiene or safety incidents were validated for people living with dementia. No scale was identified to measure the importance of relationships for people living with dementia, the formal carers' dementia-specific qualifications or the educational opportunities for informal carers. The review also describes the 50 recommended or validated scales.
conclusionsSeveral validated or recommended scales exist to measure core outcomes identified as important for assessing the quality of care provided to people living with dementia in routine care settings. This review offers COM-IC stakeholders and other potential users with information on the validated/recommended scales to measure these core outcomes.
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.