首页> 外文期刊>Evidence-based nursing >Multisensory stimulation was not better than usual activities for changinq cognition, behaviour, and mood in dementia
【24h】

Multisensory stimulation was not better than usual activities for changinq cognition, behaviour, and mood in dementia

机译:多感官刺激并不比痴呆症的常识活动,认知行为和情绪更好

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The studies by both Spector ef al and Baker ef al used a randomised controlled design, which is the most valid approach to comparing the effects of alternative healthcare interventions. In these studies, the effects of CST (Spector ef a/) and MSS (Baker ef al on improving cognition in people with dementia were each compared with other activities, although in the CST study "usual activity" was generally no activity. MSS was provided on a one to one basis for 4 weeks, whereas CST was offered in a group setting for 7 weeks; these durations of treatment were relatively short. The CST study included MSS whenever possible; however, the type of stimulus and extent to which this occurred were not reported. The MSS group was compared with an activity session (active control), whereas the CST group was compared with "usual activities" (passive control). The participants in the MSS study had greater cognitive impairment (mean MMSE score = 8.1) than those in the CST study (mean MMSE score = 14.4). The medication profiles of the participants were not reported in either study, although we know that none of the participants in the CST study were receiving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors-the only drugs that have been shown to improve cognition in dementia.' The MSS study assessed changes in cognition, behaviour, and mood at baseline, during and after the trial, and after 4 weeks, whereas the CST study examined cognition, quality of life, communication, behaviour, and mood at baseline and after the trial.Participants in the 7 week CST group were found to make significant improvements in cognition (4 or more points on the MMSE, number needed to treat = 6) and quality of life relative to those who received no activity. Although the authors of the CST study claim that CST has an effect of similar magnitude to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in improving cognition, this conclusion is based on an indirect comparison in different patients who were not part of the same randomised controlled trial. We must wait therefore for a head to head comparison of CST and drug therapy. It may also be informative to compare group CST with individual MSS to examine better the relative effects of each treatment. Neither study showed significant changes in the behavioural and mood measures. Offering the treatment over a longer time may transform the cognitive changes into observable behavioural and mood changes, but this requires evaluation.Care providers (eg, nurses and special care aides) working with this population should have confidence in these findings because both studies were methodologically rigorous and the sample sizes were adequate. The evidence suggests that CST is better than no activity and that MSS, as delivered in the study by Baker ef al, has a similar effect to other activities in improving cognition in patients with moderate to severe dementia.However, some patients may benefit more from these treatments than others. People with dementia may present with a variety of symptoms (eg, memory impairment; deficits in judgment, comprehension, task execution, and language; and visual hallucinations) depending on the type (eg, Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, or dementia with Lewy bodies) and severity of dementia. Until further research shows the influence of type and stage of dementia on the efficacy of these treatments and identifies the most effective dose, frequency, and duration of the intervention, care providers should be sensitive to factors that may influence treatment outcomes. For example, because MSS uses non-verbal communication skills, perhaps individuals who present with communication difficulties may benefit to a greater extent than others. People with substantial visual hallucinations and disruptive behaviours may be unsuitable for a CST group.Care providers have a responsibility to enhance the daily quality of life of residents with dementia in long term care facilities.CST and MSS are 2 approaches that could be used to make the
机译:Spector等人和Baker等人的研究均采用了随机对照设计,这是比较替代性医疗干预措施效果的最有效方法。在这些研究中,将CST(Spector ef a /)和MSS(Baker ef al )对改善痴呆症患者认知能力的作用分别与其他活动进行了比较,尽管在CST研究中,“通常的活动”通常没有任何活动。是以一对一的方式提供4周的服务,而以小组方式提供的CST为7周;这些治疗时间相对较短; CST研究尽可能包括MSS;但是,刺激的类型和程度MSS组与活动会话(主动控制)进行比较,而CST组与“正常活动”(被动控制)进行比较。MSS研究的参与者认知障碍更大(平均MMSE得分) = 8.1),而不是CST研究中的受试者(平均MMSE得分= 14.4)。尽管我们知道CST研究中没有受试者接受乙酰胆碱酯酶抑制剂的治疗,但两项研究均未报告受试者的用药情况MSS研究评估了基线,试验期间和试验后以及4周后认知,行为和情绪的变化,而CST研究则评估了认知,质量在基线和试验后的生活,沟通,行为和情绪的变化。发现CST组7周的参与者在认知方面(MMSE达到4分或更高,需要治疗的次数= 6)和质量得到了显着改善。相对于没有活动的人的生活。尽管CST研究的作者声称CST在改善认知方面的作用与乙酰胆碱酯酶抑制剂相似,但该结论是基于对不属于同一随机对照试验的不同患者的间接比较得出的。因此,我们必须等待CST和药物治疗的正面对比。将CST组与单个MSS进行比较以更好地检查每种治疗的相对效果也可能是有益的。两项研究均未显示出行为和情绪指标的显着变化。在更长的时间内提供治疗可能会将认知变化转变为可观察到的行为和情绪变化,但这需要评估。与该人群一起工作的护理提供者(例如,护士和特殊护理助手)应该对这些发现充满信心,因为这两项研究均在方法论上严格且样本量足够。证据表明CST总比没有活动要好,Baker等人在研究中提供的MSS在改善中度至重度痴呆患者认知方面的作用与其他活动相似,但是有些患者可能会从中受益更多这些治疗方法比其他人好。痴呆症患者可能根据类型(例如阿尔茨海默氏病,血管性痴呆或路易体痴呆)而出现多种症状(例如,记忆力减退,判断力,理解力,任务执行力和语言缺陷;以及视觉幻觉) )和痴呆的严重程度。直到进一步的研究表明痴呆的类型和阶段对这些治疗的效果产生影响并确定最有效的干预剂量,频率和持续时间之前,护理人员应对可能影响治疗结果的因素保持敏感。例如,由于MSS使用非语言沟通技巧,因此可能出现沟通困难的个人可能会比其他人受益更大。视觉幻觉严重且具有破坏性行为的人可能不适合CST团体。护理提供者有责任提高长期护理设施中痴呆症患者的日常生活质量CST和MSS是可用于制造的两种方法的

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号