Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments.
Saved in:
| Title: | Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Harding, Andrew J E1, Morbey, Hazel1, Ahmed, Faraz1, Opdebeeck, Carol2, Elvish, Ruth3, Leroi, Iracema4, Williamson, Paula R5, Keady, John3,6, Reilly, Siobhan T1 s.reilly@lancaster.ac.uk |
| Source: | Gerontologist. Dec2021, Vol. 61 Issue 8, pe435-e448. 14p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Community-based social services, Psychology information storage & retrieval systems, CINAHL database, Home rehabilitation, Systematic reviews, Health outcome assessment, Dementia, Questionnaires, MEDLINE |
| Abstract: | Background and Objectives It is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders' value. We attained consensus from more than 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review, we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. Research Design and Methods We extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews, and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and COSMIN databases. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness. We held a coresearch workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings. Results In total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these, 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the core outcome set (COS) items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The "best" available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire. Discussion and Implications This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Gerontologist is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: ehh DbLabel: Education Research Complete An: 153628156 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Harding%2C+Andrew+J+E%22">Harding, Andrew J E</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morbey%2C+Hazel%22">Morbey, Hazel</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ahmed%2C+Faraz%22">Ahmed, Faraz</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Opdebeeck%2C+Carol%22">Opdebeeck, Carol</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elvish%2C+Ruth%22">Elvish, Ruth</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leroi%2C+Iracema%22">Leroi, Iracema</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Williamson%2C+Paula+R%22">Williamson, Paula R</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Keady%2C+John%22">Keady, John</searchLink><relatesTo>3,6</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reilly%2C+Siobhan+T%22">Reilly, Siobhan T</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> s.reilly@lancaster.ac.uk</i> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Gerontologist%22">Gerontologist</searchLink>. Dec2021, Vol. 61 Issue 8, pe435-e448. 14p. – Name: Subject Label: Subject Terms Group: Su Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community-based+social+services%22">Community-based social services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychology+information+storage+%26+retrieval+systems%22">Psychology information storage & retrieval systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22CINAHL+database%22">CINAHL database</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Home+rehabilitation%22">Home rehabilitation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Systematic+reviews%22">Systematic reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Health+outcome+assessment%22">Health outcome assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dementia%22">Dementia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22MEDLINE%22">MEDLINE</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Background and Objectives It is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders' value. We attained consensus from more than 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review, we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. Research Design and Methods We extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews, and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and COSMIN databases. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness. We held a coresearch workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings. Results In total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these, 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the core outcome set (COS) items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The "best" available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire. Discussion and Implications This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Gerontologist is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=153628156 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1093/geront/gnaa071 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: e435 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Community-based social services Type: general – SubjectFull: Psychology information storage & retrieval systems Type: general – SubjectFull: CINAHL database Type: general – SubjectFull: Home rehabilitation Type: general – SubjectFull: Systematic reviews Type: general – SubjectFull: Health outcome assessment Type: general – SubjectFull: Dementia Type: general – SubjectFull: Questionnaires Type: general – SubjectFull: MEDLINE Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Harding, Andrew J E – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Morbey, Hazel – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Ahmed, Faraz – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Opdebeeck, Carol – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Elvish, Ruth – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Leroi, Iracema – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Williamson, Paula R – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Keady, John – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Reilly, Siobhan T IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 12 Text: Dec2021 Type: published Y: 2021 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 00169013 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 8 Titles: – TitleFull: Gerontologist Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
