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.

Personally tailored activities for improving psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia in community settings.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia living in the community, that is in their own homes, are often not engaged in meaningful activities. Activities tailored to their individual interests and preferences might be one approach to improve quality of life and reduce challenging behaviour. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of personally tailored activities on psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia living in the community and their caregivers. 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 ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 11 September 2019 using the terms: activity OR activities OR occupation* OR "psychosocial intervention" OR "non-pharmacological intervention" OR "personally-tailored" OR "individually-tailored" OR individual OR meaning OR involvement OR engagement OR occupational OR personhood OR "person-centred" OR identity OR Montessori OR community OR ambulatory OR "home care" OR "geriatric day hospital" OR "day care" OR "behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia" OR "BPSD" OR "neuropsychiatric symptoms" OR "challenging behaviour" OR "quality of life" OR depression. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental trials including a control group offering personally tailored activities. All interventions comprised an assessment of the participant's present or past interests in, or preferences for, particular activities for all participants as a basis for an individual activity plan. We did not include interventions offering a single activity (e.g. music or reminiscence) or activities that were not tailored to the individual's interests or preferences. Control groups received usual care or an active control intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently checked the articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of all included studies. We assessed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias. In case of missing information, we contacted the study authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomised controlled trials (four parallel-group studies and one cross-over study), in which a total of 262 participants completed the studies. The number of participants ranged from 30 to 160. The mean age of the participants ranged from 71 to 83 years, and mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores ranged from 11 to 24. One study enrolled predominantly male veterans; in the other studies the proportion of female participants ranged from 40% to 60%. Informal caregivers were mainly spouses. In four studies family caregivers were trained to deliver personally tailored activities based on an individual assessment of interests and preferences of the people with dementia, and in one study such activities were offered directly to the participants. The selection of activities was performed with different methods. Two studies compared personally tailored activities with an attention control group, and three studies with usual care. Duration of follow-up ranged from two weeks to four months. We found low-certainty evidence indicating that personally tailored activities may reduce challenging behaviour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.77 to -0.10; I2 = 44%; 4 studies; 305 participants) and may slightly improve quality of life (based on the rating of family caregivers). For the secondary outcomes depression (two studies), affect (one study), passivity (one study), and engagement (two studies), we found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may have little or no effect. We found low-certainty evidence that personally tailored activities may slightly improve caregiver distress (two studies) and may have little or no effect on caregiver burden (MD -0.62, 95% CI -3.08 to 1.83; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; 246 participants), caregivers' quality of life, and caregiver depression. None of the studies assessed adverse effects, and no information about adverse effects was reported in any study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering personally tailored activities to people with dementia living in the community may be one approach for reducing challenging behaviour and may also slightly improve the quality of life of people with dementia. Given the low certainty of the evidence, these results should be interpreted with caution. For depression and affect of people with dementia, as well as caregivers' quality of life and burden, we found no clear benefits of personally tailored activities.

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. Offering them activities which are tailored to their individual interests and preferences might improve their quality of life and reduce challenging behaviour. 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 ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 16 June 2017 using the terms: personally tailored OR individualized OR individualised OR individual OR person-centred OR meaningful OR personhood OR involvement OR engagement OR engaging OR identity. We also performed additional searches in MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (ISI 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 and controlled clinical trials offering personally tailored activities. All interventions included an assessment of the participants' present or past preferences for, or interests 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 checked the articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. For all studies, we assessed the risk of selection bias, performance bias, attrition bias and detection bias. In case of missing information, we contacted the study authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies with 957 participants. The mean age of participants in the studies ranged from 78 to 88 years and in seven studies the mean MMSE score was 12 or lower. Seven studies were randomised controlled trials (three individually randomised, parallel group studies, one individually randomised cross-over study and three cluster-randomised trials) and one study was a non-randomised clinical trial. Five studies included a control group receiving usual care, two studies an active control intervention (activities which were not personally tailored) and one study included both an active control and usual care. Personally tailored activities were mainly delivered directly to the participants; in one study the nursing staff were trained to deliver the activities. The selection of activities was based on different theoretical models but the activities did not vary substantially.We found low-quality evidence indicating that personally tailored activities may slightly improve challenging behaviour (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.49 to 0.08; I² = 50%; 6 studies; 439 participants). We also found low-quality 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). There was very little evidence related to our other primary outcome of quality of life, which was assessed in only one study. From this study, we found that quality of life rated by proxies was slightly worse in the group receiving personally tailored activities (moderate-quality evidence, mean difference (MD) -1.93, 95% CI -3.63 to -0.23; 139 participants). Self-rated quality of life was only available for a small number of participants, and there was little or no difference between personally tailored activities and usual care on this outcome (low-quality evidence, MD 0.26, 95% CI -3.04 to 3.56; 42 participants). We found low-quality evidence that personally tailored activities may make little or no difference to negative affect (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.14; I² = 0%; 6 studies; 589 participants). We found very low quality evidence and are therefore very uncertain whether personally tailored activities have any effect on positive affect (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; I² = 80%; 6 studies; 498 participants); or mood (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.23; I² = 0%; 3 studies; 247 participants). We were not able to undertake a meta-analysis for engagement and the sleep-related outcomes. We found very low quality evidence and are therefore very uncertain whether personally tailored activities improve engagement or sleep-related outcomes (176 and 139 participants, respectively). Two studies that investigated the duration of the effects of personally tailored activities indicated that the intervention effects persisted only during the delivery of the activities. Two studies reported information about adverse effects and no adverse effects were observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Offering personally tailored activities to people with dementia in long-term care may slightly improve challenging behaviour. Evidence from one study suggested that it was probably associated with a slight reduction in the quality of life rated by proxies, but may have little or no effect on self-rated quality of life. We acknowledge concerns about the validity of proxy ratings of quality of life in severe dementia. Personally tailored activities may have little or no effect on negative affect and we are uncertain whether they improve positive affect or mood. There was no evidence that interventions were more likely to be effective if based on one specific theoretical model rather than another. Our findings leave us unable to make recommendations about specific activities or the frequency and duration of delivery. Further research should focus on methods for selecting appropriate and meaningful activities for people in different stages of dementia.

Soft drinks consumption, diet quality and BMI in a Mediterranean population.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence of the effects of soft drinks consumption on BMI and lifestyle in adult populations is mixed and quite limited. The aim of the present study was to determine the association of soft drinks consumption with BMI and lifestyle in a representative Mediterranean population. DESIGN: Two independent, population-based, cross-sectional (2000 and 2005) studies. Dietary intake was assessed using a validated FFQ. Weight and height were measured. SETTING: Girona, Spain. SUBJECTS: Random sample of the 35- to 74-year-old population (3910 men and 4285 women). RESULTS: Less than half (41·7%) of the population consumed soft drinks; the mean consumption was 36·2 ml/d. The prevalence of sedentary lifestyle increased with the frequency of soft drinks consumption (P = 0·025). Daily soft drinks consumption significantly increased the risk of low adherence to the Mediterranean diet (OR = 0·57, 95% CI 0·44, 0·74 v. top tertile of Mediterranean diet score). Multiple linear regression analyses, controlled for potential confounders, revealed that an increment in soft drinks consumption of 100 ml was associated with a 0·21 kg/m² increase in BMI (P = 0·001). Only implausibly low reports of energy consumption showed a null association between soft drinks consumption and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Soft drinks consumption was not embedded in a healthy diet context and was positively associated with BMI and sedentary lifestyle in this Mediterranean population.