HomePublications

Effectiveness of Interventions for Preventing People With Dementia Exiting or Getting Lost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Effectiveness of Interventions for Preventing People With Dementia Exiting or Getting Lost. / Emrich-Mills, Luke; Puthusseryppady, Vaisakh; Hornberger, Michael; C. Heyn, Patricia (Editor).

In: The Gerontologist, 31.10.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex- Download

@article{f44c1686d2214ce9a4970d74cedae07e,
title = "Effectiveness of Interventions for Preventing People With Dementia Exiting or Getting Lost",
abstract = "Background and ObjectivesPeople with dementia are at risk of exiting premises unsupervised, eloping, or getting lost, potentially leading to harmful or distressing consequences. This review aimed to estimate the effectiveness of interventions for preventing people with dementia from exiting or getting lost.Research Design and MethodsA systematic review of English sources was undertaken. Health care (EMBASE, BNI, Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, HTA, CENTRAL) and gray literature (OpenGrey) databases were searched using prespecified search terms. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of relevant reviews and included studies. Wide inclusion criteria were set to capture a range of intervention types. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. Methods were preregistered on PROSPERO.ResultsIndividual and overall risk of bias was too high for statistical meta-analyses. A narrative synthesis was therefore performed. Twenty-five studies with 814 participants were included, investigating a range of nonpharmacological interventions aiming to prevent exiting, facilitate retrieval, educate participants, or a combination of these. Seventeen (68%) of the included studies had critical risks of internal bias to outcomes, providing no useful evidence for the effectiveness of their respective interventions. The remaining 8 (32%) studies had serious risks of bias. Narrative synthesis of results yielded no overall robust evidence for the effectiveness of any interventions.Discussion and ImplicationsNo evidence was found to justify the recommendation of any interventions included in this review. Future studies should focus on high-quality, controlled study designs.",
author = "Luke Emrich-Mills and Vaisakh Puthusseryppady and Michael Hornberger and {C. Heyn}, Patricia",
year = "2019",
month = oct,
day = "31",
doi = "10.1093/geront/gnz133",
language = "English",
journal = "Gerontologist",
issn = "0016-9013",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of Interventions for Preventing People With Dementia Exiting or Getting Lost

AU - Emrich-Mills, Luke

AU - Puthusseryppady, Vaisakh

AU - Hornberger, Michael

A2 - C. Heyn, Patricia

PY - 2019/10/31

Y1 - 2019/10/31

N2 - Background and ObjectivesPeople with dementia are at risk of exiting premises unsupervised, eloping, or getting lost, potentially leading to harmful or distressing consequences. This review aimed to estimate the effectiveness of interventions for preventing people with dementia from exiting or getting lost.Research Design and MethodsA systematic review of English sources was undertaken. Health care (EMBASE, BNI, Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, HTA, CENTRAL) and gray literature (OpenGrey) databases were searched using prespecified search terms. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of relevant reviews and included studies. Wide inclusion criteria were set to capture a range of intervention types. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. Methods were preregistered on PROSPERO.ResultsIndividual and overall risk of bias was too high for statistical meta-analyses. A narrative synthesis was therefore performed. Twenty-five studies with 814 participants were included, investigating a range of nonpharmacological interventions aiming to prevent exiting, facilitate retrieval, educate participants, or a combination of these. Seventeen (68%) of the included studies had critical risks of internal bias to outcomes, providing no useful evidence for the effectiveness of their respective interventions. The remaining 8 (32%) studies had serious risks of bias. Narrative synthesis of results yielded no overall robust evidence for the effectiveness of any interventions.Discussion and ImplicationsNo evidence was found to justify the recommendation of any interventions included in this review. Future studies should focus on high-quality, controlled study designs.

AB - Background and ObjectivesPeople with dementia are at risk of exiting premises unsupervised, eloping, or getting lost, potentially leading to harmful or distressing consequences. This review aimed to estimate the effectiveness of interventions for preventing people with dementia from exiting or getting lost.Research Design and MethodsA systematic review of English sources was undertaken. Health care (EMBASE, BNI, Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, HTA, CENTRAL) and gray literature (OpenGrey) databases were searched using prespecified search terms. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching bibliographies of relevant reviews and included studies. Wide inclusion criteria were set to capture a range of intervention types. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. Methods were preregistered on PROSPERO.ResultsIndividual and overall risk of bias was too high for statistical meta-analyses. A narrative synthesis was therefore performed. Twenty-five studies with 814 participants were included, investigating a range of nonpharmacological interventions aiming to prevent exiting, facilitate retrieval, educate participants, or a combination of these. Seventeen (68%) of the included studies had critical risks of internal bias to outcomes, providing no useful evidence for the effectiveness of their respective interventions. The remaining 8 (32%) studies had serious risks of bias. Narrative synthesis of results yielded no overall robust evidence for the effectiveness of any interventions.Discussion and ImplicationsNo evidence was found to justify the recommendation of any interventions included in this review. Future studies should focus on high-quality, controlled study designs.

U2 - 10.1093/geront/gnz133

DO - 10.1093/geront/gnz133

M3 - Article

JO - Gerontologist

JF - Gerontologist

SN - 0016-9013

ER -

ID: 170271767