Search

Objectives: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia and to identify potential influencing factors. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across 10 electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Chinese Biomedical, China National Knowledge Internet, and WANFANG. Our search strategy covered the inception of the databases up to September 16, 2023, with an updated search conducted on March 8, 2024. Prevalence estimates of loneliness and social isolation, presented with 95% confidence intervals, were synthesized through meta‐analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta‐regression were employed to explore potential moderating variables and heterogeneity. Results: The study encompassed 27 research papers involving 11,134 informal carers from 17 different countries. The pooled prevalence of loneliness among informal carers of individuals with dementia was 50.8% (95% CI: 41.8%–59.8%), while the pooled prevalence of social isolation was 37.1% (95% CI: 26.7%–47.6%). Subgroup analyses and meta‐regression indicated that various factors significantly influenced the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation. These factors included the caregiving setting, study design, the intensity of loneliness, geographical location (continent), data collection time, and the choice of assessment tools. Conclusions: This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. It suggests that policymakers and healthcare providers should prioritize the development of targeted interventions and support systems to alleviate loneliness and social isolation within this vulnerable population. Key points: Informal carers of people with dementia contend with unique circumstances that render them susceptible to both loneliness and social isolation.There is a significant prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in informal carers of individuals with dementia.Several significant moderators influence the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia.Moderator analysis can guide targeted interventions and support systems for at‐risk informal carers of people with dementia to alleviate loneliness and social isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: More people with dementia live in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) than in high‐income countries, but best‐practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high‐income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs. Methods: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias. Results: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008–2018. Over two‐thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%). Conclusions: Evidence‐generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence‐generation for LMICs. Key points: While the majority of people with dementia reside in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), it is not known what types of interventions have been studied in these settings and how effective they are.We conducted the first comprehensive mapping study of interventions for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs.This high‐level overview of dementia intervention research in LMICs identified the following gaps: dementia intervention research is highly concentrated in just a few LMICs, and skewed towards Traditional Chinese Medicine, Western pharmaceuticals, and supplements, with comparatively little evidence generated on interventions for carers.Lack of robust and locally relevant evidence on effective interventions presents a substantial challenge to designing evidence‐based treatment and care systems that help people with dementia or MCI and their carers to live better lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increase in our older adult population, there is a need for dementia training for informal and formal dementia caregivers. The objective of this scoping study is to assess dementia knowledge instruments utilized in educational programs and interventions intended for formal and informal dementia caregivers. Scoping review methodology was used to search PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Web of Science with tailored database search terms. The search yielded 8101 results, with 35 studies meeting inclusion. Studies were conducted in eight countries, had varying study designs (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] = 9, non‐RCTs = 6, one‐group study design = 20) and utilized previously published (19) and author developed (16) instruments. Furthermore, the studies were internationally diverse, conducted in the United States (n = 18), Australia (n = 7), UK (n = 3), China (n = 2), Canada (n = 2), Taiwan (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1) and multi‐country (n = 1). Only two studies focused on minority populations. While author‐developed instruments may be more relevant and timesaving, studies should strive to validate instruments or use previously published instruments to help standardize findings across studies and understand better the effects of educational programs on caregiver knowledge. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 397–413. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]