Psychosocial interventions for reducing antipsychotic medication in care home residents.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are regularly prescribed in care home residents for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) despite questionable efficacy, important adverse effects, and available non-pharmacological interventions. Prescription rates are related to organisational factors, staff training and job satisfaction, patient characteristics, and specific interventions. Psychosocial intervention programmes aimed at reducing the prescription of antipsychotic drugs are available. These programmes may target care home residents (e.g. improving communication and interpersonal relationships) or target staff (e.g. by providing skills for caring for people with BPSD). Therefore, this review aimed to assess the effectiveness of these interventions, updating our earlier review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of psychosocial interventions to reduce antipsychotic medication use in care home residents compared to regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 14 July 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials comparing a psychosocial intervention aimed primarily at reducing the use of antipsychotic medication with regular care, optimised regular care, or a different psychosocial intervention. Psychosocial interventions were defined as non-pharmacological intervention with psychosocial components. We excluded medication withdrawal or substitution interventions, interventions without direct interpersonal contact and communication, and interventions solely addressing policy changes or structural interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Critical appraisal of studies addressed risks of selection, performance, attrition and detection bias, as well as criteria related to cluster randomisation. We retrieved data on the complex interventions on the basis of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist. Our primary outcomes were 1. use of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication and 2. ADVERSE EVENTS: Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality; 4. BPSD; 5. quality of life; 6. prescribing of regularly psychotropic medication; 7. regimen of regularly prescribed antipsychotic medication; 8. antipsychotic medication administered 'as needed'; 9. physical restraints; 10. cognitive status; 11. depression; 12. activities of daily living; and 13. COSTS: We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five cluster-randomised controlled studies (120 clusters, 8342 participants). We found pronounced clinical heterogeneity and therefore decided to present study results narratively. All studies investigated complex interventions comprising, among other components, educational approaches. Because of the heterogeneity of the results, including the direction of effects, we are uncertain about the effects of psychosocial interventions on the prescription of antipsychotic medication. One study investigating an educational intervention for care home staff assessed the use of antipsychotic medication in days of use per 100 resident-days, and found this to be lower in the intervention group (mean difference 6.30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.05 to 6.66; 1152 participants). The other four studies reported the proportion of participants with a regular antipsychotic prescription. Of two studies implementing an intervention to promote person-centred care, one found a difference in favour of the intervention group (between-group difference 19.1%, 95% CI 0.5% to 37.7%; 338 participants), while the other found a difference in favour of the control group (between-group difference 11.4%, 95% CI 0.9% to 21.9%; 862 participants). One study investigating an educational programme described as "academic detailing" found no difference between groups (odds ratio 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.20; 5363 participants). The fifth study used a factorial design to compare different combinations of interventions to supplement person-centred care. Results showed a positive effect of medication review, and no clear effect of social interaction or exercise. We considered that, overall, the evidence about this outcome was of low certainty. We found high-certainty evidence that psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use resulted in little to no difference in the number of falls, non-elective hospitalisations, or unplanned emergency department visits. Psychosocial interventions intended primarily to reduce antipsychotic use also resulted in little to no difference in quality of life (moderate-certainty evidence), and BPSD, regular prescribing of psychotropic medication, use of physical restraints, depression, or activities of daily living (all low-certainty evidence). We also found low-certainty evidence that, in the context of these interventions, social interaction and medication review may reduce mortality, but exercise does not. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All included interventions were complex and the components of the interventions differed considerably between studies. Interventions and intervention components were mostly not described in sufficient detail. Two studies found evidence that the complex psychosocial interventions may reduce antipsychotic medication use. In addition, one study showed that medication review might have some impact on antipsychotic prescribing rates. There were no important adverse events. Overall, the available evidence does not allow for clear generalisable recommendations.

Personally tailored activities for improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia who are being cared for in long-term care settings are often not engaged in meaningful activities. We wanted to know whether offering them activities which are tailored to their individual interests and preferences could improve their quality of life and reduce agitation. This review updates our earlier review published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: ∙ To assess the effects of personally tailored activities on psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia living in long-term care facilities. ∙ To describe the components of the interventions. ∙ To describe conditions which enhance the effectiveness of personally tailored activities in this setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 15 June 2022. We also performed additional searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP, to ensure that the search for the review was as up-to-date and as comprehensive as possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials offering personally tailored activities. All interventions included an assessment of the participants' present or past preferences for, or interest in, particular activities as a basis for an individual activity plan. Control groups received either usual care or an active control intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Our primary efficacy outcomes were agitation and participant quality of life. Where possible, we pooled data across studies using a random effects model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three new studies, and therefore included 11 studies with 1071 participants in this review update. The mean age of participants was 78 to 88 years and most had moderate or severe dementia. Ten studies were RCTs (three studies randomised clusters to the study groups, six studies randomised individual participants, and one study randomised matched pairs of participants) and one study was a non-randomised clinical trial. Five studies included a control group receiving usual care, five studies an active control group (activities which were not personally tailored) and one study included both types of control group. The duration of follow-up ranged from 10 days to nine months. In nine studies personally tailored activities were delivered directly to the participants. In one study nursing staff, and in another study family members, were trained to deliver the activities. The selection of activities was based on different theoretical models, but the activities delivered did not vary substantially. We judged the risk of selection bias to be high in five studies, the risk of performance bias to be high in five studies and the risk of detection bias to be high in four studies. We found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may slightly reduce agitation (standardised mean difference -0.26, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.01; I² = 50%; 7 studies, 485 participants). We also found low-certainty evidence from one study that was not included in the meta-analysis, indicating that personally tailored activities may make little or no difference to general restlessness, aggression, uncooperative behaviour, very negative and negative verbal behaviour (180 participants). Two studies investigated quality of life by proxy-rating. We found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may result in little to no difference in quality of life in comparison with usual care or an active control group (MD -0.83, 95% CI -3.97 to 2.30; I² = 51%; 2 studies, 177 participants). Self-rated quality of life was only available for a small number of participants from one study, and there was little or no difference between personally tailored activities and usual care on this outcome (MD 0.26, 95% CI -3.04 to 3.56; 42 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies assessed adverse effects, but no adverse effects were observed. We are very uncertain about the effects of personally tailored activities on mood and positive affect. For negative affect we found moderate-certainty evidence that there is probably little to no effect of personally tailored activities compared to usual care or activities which are not personalised (standardised mean difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.14; 6 studies, 632 participants). We were not able to undertake meta-analyses for engagement and sleep-related outcomes, and we are very uncertain whether personally tailored activities have any effect on these outcomes. Two studies that investigated the duration of the effects of personally tailored activities indicated that the intervention effects they found persisted only during the period of delivery of the activities. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering personally tailored activities to people with dementia in long-term care may slightly reduce agitation. Personally tailored activities may result in little to no difference in quality of life rated by proxies, but we acknowledge concerns about the validity of proxy ratings of quality of life in severe dementia. Personally tailored activities probably have little or no effect on negative affect, and we are uncertain whether they have any effect on positive affect or mood. There was no evidence that interventions were more likely to be effective if based on one theoretical model rather than another. We included three new studies in this updated review, but two studies were pilot trials and included only a small number of participants. Certainty of evidence was predominately very low or low due to several methodological limitations of and inconsistencies between the included studies. Evidence is still limited, and we remain unable to describe optimal activity programmes. Further research should focus on methods for selecting appropriate and meaningful activities for people in different stages of dementia.

Non-pharmacological interventions for sleep disturbances in people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances occur frequently in people with dementia with a reported prevalence of up to 40%. Common problems are increased number and duration of awakenings and increased percentage of light sleep. Sleep disturbances are associated with a number of problems for people with dementia, their relatives, and carers. In people with dementia, they may lead to worsening of cognitive symptoms, challenging behaviours such as restlessness or wandering, and further harms, such as accidental falls. Sleep disturbances are also associated with significant carer distress and have been reported as a factor contributing to institutionalisation of people with dementia. As pharmacological approaches have shown unsatisfactory results, there is a need to synthesise the research evidence on non-pharmacological strategies to improve sleep in people with dementia. As interventions are often complex, consisting of more than one active component, and implemented in complex contexts, it may not be easy to identify effective intervention components. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions on sleep disturbances in people with dementia compared to usual care, no treatment, any other non-pharmacological intervention, or any drug treatment intended to improve sleep, and to describe the components and processes of any complex intervention included. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 13 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individually or cluster-randomised controlled trials in people with dementia comparing non-pharmacological interventions to improve sleep compared to usual care or to other interventions of any type. Eligible studies had to have a sleep-related primary outcome. We included people with a diagnosis of dementia and sleep problems at baseline irrespective of age, type of dementia, severity of cognitive impairment, or setting. Studies reporting results on a mixed sample (e.g. in a nursing home) were only considered for inclusion if at least 80% of participants had dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. objective sleep-related outcomes (e.g. total nocturnal sleep time, consolidated sleep time at night, sleep efficiency, total wake time at night (or time spent awake after sleep onset), number of nocturnal awakenings, sleep onset latency, daytime/night-time sleep ratio, night-time/total sleep ratio over 24 hours) and 2. ADVERSE EVENTS: Our secondary outcomes were 3. subjective sleep-related outcomes, 4. behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, 5. quality of life, 6. functional status, 7. institutionalisation, 8. compliance with the intervention, and 9. attrition rates. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence and chose key outcomes to be included in summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 randomised controlled trials with 1335 participants allocated to treatment or control groups. Fourteen studies were conducted in nursing homes, three included community residents, one included 'inpatients', one included people from a mental health centre, and one included people from district community centres for older people. Fourteen studies were conducted in the US. We also identified nine ongoing studies. All studies applied one or more non-pharmacological intervention aiming to improve physiological sleep in people with dementia and sleep problems. The most frequently examined single intervention was some form of light therapy (six studies), five studies included physical or social activities, three carer interventions, one daytime sleep restriction, one slow-stroke back massage, and one transcranial electrostimulation. Seven studies examined multimodal complex interventions. Risk of bias of included studies was frequently unclear due to incomplete reporting. Therefore, we rated no study at low risk of bias. We are uncertain whether light therapy has any effect on sleep-related outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Physical activities may slightly increase the total nocturnal sleep time and sleep efficiency, and may reduce the total time awake at night and slightly reduce the number of awakenings at night (low-certainty evidence). Social activities may slightly increase total nocturnal sleep time and sleep efficiency (low-certainty evidence). Carer interventions may modestly increase total nocturnal sleep time, may slightly increase sleep efficiency, and may modestly decrease the total awake time during the night (low-certainty evidence from one study). Multimodal interventions may modestly increase total nocturnal sleep time and may modestly reduce the total wake time at night, but may result in little to no difference in number of awakenings (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of multimodal interventions on sleep efficiency (very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that daytime sleep restrictions, slow-stroke back massage, and transcranial electrostimulation may result in little to no difference in sleep-related outcomes. Only two studies reported information about adverse events, detecting only few such events in the intervention groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the inclusion of 19 randomised controlled trials, there is a lack of conclusive evidence concerning non-pharmacological interventions for sleep problems in people with dementia. Although neither single nor multimodal interventions consistently improved sleep with sufficient certainty, we found some positive effects on physical and social activities as well as carer interventions. Future studies should use rigorous methods to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of multimodal interventions using current guidelines on the development and evaluation of complex interventions. At present, no single or multimodal intervention can be clearly identified as suitable for widespread implementation.