↓ Skip to main content

Simulated presence therapy for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
19 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Simulated presence therapy for dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011882.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iosief Abraha, Joseph M Rimland, Isabel Lozano-Montoya, Giuseppina Dell'Aquila, Manuel Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés, Fabiana M Trotta, Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft, Antonio Cherubini

Abstract

Dementia is a common and serious neuropsychiatric syndrome, characterised by progressive cognitive and functional decline. The majority of people with dementia develop behavioural disturbances, also known as behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Several non-pharmacological interventions have been evaluated to treat BPSD in people with dementia. Simulated presence therapy (SPT), an intervention that uses video or audiotape recordings of family members played to the person with dementia, is a possible approach to treat BPSD. To assess the effects of SPT on behavioural and psychological symptoms and quality of life in people with dementia. We searched ALOIS (the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library) (9 February 2016), MEDLINE Ovid SP (1946 to 6 January 2017), Embase Ovid SP (1972 to 6 January 2017), PsycINFO Ovid SP (1806 to 6 January 2017), CINAHL via EBSCOhost (1980 to 6 January 2017), LILACS via BIREME (all dates to 6 January 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov) (all dates to 6 January 2017), and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal (apps.who.int/trialsearch) (all dates to 6 January 2017). We also checked the reference lists of relevant articles to identify any additional studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including cross-over studies, that evaluated the efficacy of SPT, consisting of personalised audio or videotape recordings of family members, in people with any form of dementia. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. No meta-analyses were conducted because of substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. Three trials with 144 participants met the inclusion criteria. Two of the trials had a randomised cross-over design, one was a cross-over trial which we classified as quasi-randomised.Participants in the included studies were people with dementia living in nursing homes. They were predominantly women and had a mean age of over 80 years. SPT was performed using an audio or video recording prepared by family members or surrogates. It varied in its content, frequency of administration and duration. All the studies compared multiple treatments. In one study, SPT was compared with two other interventions; in the other two studies, it was compared with three other interventions. Specifically, SPT was compared to usual care, personalised music (two studies), a 'placebo' audiotape containing the voice of a person (two studies), and one-to-one social interaction performed by trained research assistants (one study). In terms of outcomes evaluated, one study considered agitation and withdrawn behaviour (both assessed with three methods); the second study evaluated verbal disruptive behaviour (assessed with three methods); and the third study evaluated physically agitated behaviour and verbally agitated behaviour (the method used was not clearly described).According to the GRADE criteria, the overall quality of the evidence was very low due to very small numbers of participants and risk of bias in the included studies; (none of the trials was at low risk of selection bias; all the trials were at high risk of performance bias; one trial was at high risk of attrition bias; and all had unclear selective reporting).Because of variation in the participants, the format of SPT, the comparison interventions, and the measures used to assess outcomes, we judged the results unsuitable for a meta-analysis.Within each trial, the effect of SPT on behaviour, compared to usual care, was mixed and depended on the measure used. Two trials which included a personalised music intervention reported no significant differences between simulated presence and music on behavioural outcomes. Because the overall quality of the evidence was very low, we were very uncertain regarding all the resultsNone of the studies evaluated quality of life or any of our secondary outcome measures (performance of activities of daily living, dropout and carer burden). We were unable to draw any conclusions about the efficacy of SPT for treating behavioural and psychological symptoms and improving quality of life of people with dementia. New high-quality studies are needed to investigate the effect of SPT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 174 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 30 17%
Unspecified 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 14%
Student > Master 25 14%
Other 37 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 20%
Unspecified 33 19%
Psychology 28 16%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Other 25 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2019.
All research outputs
#825,777
of 13,396,110 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,647
of 10,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,166
of 265,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,396,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.