Facilitators and barriers to implement nurse-led physical activities for people with dementia in nursing homes: a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Hirt, Julian; Vetsch, Janine; Heinrich, Steffen

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056353

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In case of mixed samples from nursing homes and other settings, 80% of the population had to be related to nursing homes. We define nursing homes as a setting where people (can) receive 24hour professional nursing [ 29 ]. We excluded studies with an unclear or smaller amount of nursing home-related populations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Elder abuse in long-term care is an important public health concern with social, health-related, and economic implications. Staff-to-resident abuse is of particular interest since institutions should protect residents’ rights and prevent harm. To provide an up-to date comprehensive overview of staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes, we performed a scoping review considering types of abuse, their prevalence and associated factors, descriptions, experiences, and preventive interventions. Methods We performed a scoping review following the framework provided by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO via Ovid, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, we performed free web searching using Google Scholar and checked relevant reviews. Two reviewers independently selected studies. We narratively synthesised the results. Results Out of 3876 references retrieved by our search, we included 46 studies in 47 reports. The prevalence rates of abuse varied widely, ranging from 0 to 93% depending on the type of abuse. Associated factors of abuse at the staff, resident, and nursing home level were evaluated inconsistently. Abuse was perceived ambiguous: even though it was considered unacceptable, it was underreported. We found only four studies addressing preventive interventions. Of these, four made recommendations for intervention development. Only one study with an experimental design examined a multi-component intervention including education and mutual support. Conclusions The review yielded heterogenous evidence not allowing a concrete conclusion on prevalence and associated factors. However, the results show the significance of the problem and indicate that there are associate factors of abuse that can be influenced by appropriate interventions. These are amongst other staff education, organisational culture, and conditions. Further research should investigate the composition and content of preventive interventions and their potential to reduce abusive behaviours.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Staff-to-resident abuse in nursing homes: a scoping review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The collection of search terms (table 2) is based on an initial search and meta-data of its results (ie, title, abstract, author keyword(s), controlled vocabulary), 22 brainstorming for initial search terms with members of the Frei-Zeit study team (LA and CM), reviews that were previously worked on by members of the review team and the experience in designing dementia-specific search strings of the review team [23][24][25][26][27][28] and the results of ongoing preliminary searches (meta-data, ie, title, abstract, author keyword(s), controlled vocabulary). The controlled vocabulary search is conducted within the specific database-controlled vocabulary catalogues and is supported by the use of the Yale MeSH Analyzer, 29 PubMed PubReminer 30 and Coremine Medical 31 based on references retrieved by the initial and preliminary searches.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring experiences of times without care and encounters in dementia: protocol for a living and adaptive evidence map

Hirt,

Adlbrecht,

Maurer

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIndividuals with dementia spend most of the day without care, without encounters, and usually without activity. Although this has been proven in studies, there is a knowledge gap on how individuals with dementia experience these periods of time. Such knowledge would be highly relevant for health professionals and relatives to develop adequate strategies for dealing with these periods of time. TheFreiZeitstudy aims to reconstruct periods of time without care and encounters from the perspective of individuals with dementia and formal and informal carers. The specific objective of this review is to provide a continuously updated overview of the topical evidence that may be used to guide data synthesis and interpretation within theFreiZeitstudy.Methods and analysisWe conduct a living evidence map, based on a comprehensive systematic literature search in MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO/Ovid and Web of Science Core Collection, citation-based searches and web searches. We include studies on times without care and encounters of individuals with dementia from the perspective of individuals with dementia themselves and formal or informal caregivers of any observational study design that were conducted in the institutional and domestic long-term care setting and published as journal article in English, French or German language without any restriction of the publication year. One reviewer screens titles, abstracts and full texts and extracts data. Key characteristics and results of the included studies are charted in a tabular format. The searches will be run and continuously updated throughout the duration of the overarchingFreiZeitstudy (every 6 months for 2 years from 2023 to 2025).Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this evidence map. We disseminate our findings via journal articles and conference proceedings as well as other formats.Registration detailsThis review protocol is uploaded on Open Science Framework (OSF; DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/GDYZ9).

show abstract