Expanded review criteria: the case of nonpharmacological interventions in dementia

Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska, Buckwalter, Kathleen, Beattie, Elizabeth, Rose, Karen, Neville, Christine and Kolanowski, Ann (2014) Expanded review criteria: the case of nonpharmacological interventions in dementia. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 41 1: 15-28. doi:10.3233/JAD-132357

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Author Cohen-Mansfield, Jiska
Buckwalter, Kathleen
Beattie, Elizabeth
Rose, Karen
Neville, Christine
Kolanowski, Ann
Title Expanded review criteria: the case of nonpharmacological interventions in dementia
Journal name Journal of Alzheimer's Disease   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1387-2877
1875-8908
Publication date 2014-05-31
Year available 2013
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.3233/JAD-132357
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 41
Issue 1
Start page 15
End page 28
Total pages 14
Place of publication Amsterdam, Netherlands
Publisher I O S Press
Language eng
Abstract This paper challenges the assumptions underlying many reviews and offers alternative criteria for examining evidence for nonpharmacological interventions. We evaluated 27 reviews examining interventions for persons with dementia as they relate to the issues of selection based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Reviews were described by type of intervention, level of cognitive function, and criteria for inclusion. Of the 27 reviews, 46% required RCTs for inclusion and most had stringent inclusion criteria. This resulted in poor utilization of the literature and low ecological validity. Eliminating most of the available data poses a critical problem to clinical and research development. Studies meeting strict methodological criteria may not generalize to the greater population or may exclude sub-populations and interventions. Limitations of double-blind RCTs and potential design solutions are set forth based on appropriate populations, problems, interventions, and settings characteristics.
Formatted abstract
This paper challenges the assumptions underlying many reviews and offers alternative criteria for examining evidence for nonpharmacological interventions. We evaluated 27 reviews examining interventions for persons with dementia as they relate to the issues of selection based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Reviews were described by type of intervention, level of cognitive function, and criteria for inclusion. Of the 27 reviews, 46% required RCTs for inclusion and most had stringent inclusion criteria. This resulted in poor utilization of the literature and low ecological validity. Eliminating most of the available data poses a critical problem to corresponding clinical and research development. Studies meeting strict methodological criteria may not generalize to the greater population or may exclude sub-populations and interventions. Limitations of double-blind RCTs and potential design solutions are set forth based on appropriate populations, problems, interventions, and settings characteristics.
Keyword Dementia
Interventions
Older persons
Randomized controlled trials
Research designs
Review
Nonpharmacological therapy
Behavioural and psychological symptoms
Review criteria
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2015 Collection
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 6 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 7 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 21 Jan 2014, 23:31:27 EST by Dr Christine Neville on behalf of School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work