↓ Skip to main content

Reminiscence therapy for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 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
Reminiscence therapy for dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001120.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bob Woods, Laura O'Philbin, Emma M Farrell, Aimee E Spector, Martin Orrell

Abstract

This updated Cochrane Review of reminiscence therapy (RT) for dementia was first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. RT involves the discussion of memories and past experiences with other people using tangible prompts such as photographs or music to evoke memories and stimulate conversation. RT is implemented widely in a range of settings using a variety of formats. To assess the effects of RT on people living with dementia and their carers, taking into account differences in its implementation, including setting (care home, community) and modality (group, individual). We searched ALOIS (the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register) on 6 April 2017 using the search term 'reminiscence.' We included all randomised controlled trials of RT for dementia in which the duration of the intervention was at least four weeks (or six sessions) and that had a 'no treatment' or passive control group. Outcomes of interest were quality of life (QoL), cognition, communication, behaviour, mood and carer outcomes. Two authors (LOP and EF) independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from all sufficiently similar studies reporting on each outcome. We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. We included 22 studies involving 1972 people with dementia. Meta-analyses included data from 16 studies (1749 participants). Apart from six studies with risk of selection bias, the overall risk of bias in the studies was low.Overall, moderate quality evidence indicated RT did not have an important effect on QoL immediately after the intervention period compared with no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.33; I2= 59%; 8 studies; 1060 participants). Inconsistency between studies mainly related to the study setting. There was probably a slight benefit in favour of RT in care homes post-treatment (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 3 studies; 193 participants), but little or no difference in QoL in community settings (867 participants from five studies).For cognitive measures, there was high quality evidence for a very small benefit, of doubtful clinical importance, associated with reminiscence at the end of treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; 14 studies; 1219 participants), but little or no difference at longer-term follow-up. There was a probable slight improvement for individual reminiscence and for care homes when analysed separately, but little or no difference for community settings or for group studies. Nine studies included the widely used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a cognitive measure, and, on this scale, there was high quality evidence for an improvement at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) 1.87 points, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.20; 437 participants). There was a similar effect at longer-term follow-up, but the quality of evidence for this analysis was low (1.8 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 3.65).For communication measures, there may have been a benefit of RT at the end of treatment (SMD -0.51 points, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.05; I2= 62%; negative scores indicated improvement; 6 studies; 249 participants), but there was inconsistency between studies, related to the RT modality. At follow-up, there was probably a slight benefit of RT (SMD -0.49 points, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.21; 4 studies; 204 participants). Effects were uncertain for individual RT, with very low quality evidence available. For reminiscence groups, evidence of moderate quality indicated a probable slight benefit immediately (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06; 4 studies; 153 participants), and at later follow-up. Community participants probably benefited at end of treatment and follow-up. For care home participants, the results were inconsistent between studies and, while there may be an improvement at follow-up, at the end of treatment the evidence quality was very low and effects were uncertain.Other outcome domains examined for people with dementia included mood, functioning in daily activities, agitation/irritability and relationship quality. There were no clear effects in these domains. Individual reminiscence was probably associated with a slight benefit on depression scales, although its clinical importance was uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.06; 4 studies; 131 participants). We found no evidence of any harmful effects on people with dementia.We also looked at outcomes for carers, including stress, mood and quality of relationship with the person with dementia (from the carer's perspective). We found no evidence of effects on carers other than a potential adverse outcome related to carer anxiety at longer-term follow-up, based on two studies that had involved the carer jointly in reminiscence groups with people with dementia. The control group carers were probably slightly less anxious (MD 0.56 points, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30; 464 participants), but this result is of uncertain clinical importance, and is also consistent with little or no effect. The effects of reminiscence interventions are inconsistent, often small in size and can differ considerably across settings and modalities. RT has some positive effects on people with dementia in the domains of QoL, cognition, communication and mood. Care home studies show the widest range of benefits, including QoL, cognition and communication (at follow-up). Individual RT is associated with probable benefits for cognition and mood. Group RT and a community setting are associated with probable improvements in communication. The wide range of RT interventions across studies makes comparisons and evaluation of relative benefits difficult. Treatment protocols are not described in sufficient detail in many publications. There have been welcome improvements in the quality of research on RT since the previous version of this review, although there still remains a need for more randomised controlled trials following clear, detailed treatment protocols, especially allowing the effects of simple and integrative RT to be compared.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 244 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 20%
Student > Master 44 18%
Unspecified 34 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Student > Postgraduate 23 9%
Other 61 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 61 25%
Unspecified 44 18%
Psychology 42 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 14%
Social Sciences 26 11%
Other 38 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#190,737
of 13,615,267 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#441
of 10,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,497
of 271,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#15
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,615,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 271,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.