Nonpharmacological Pain Management for People With Dementia: A Scoping Review Mapping Research Gaps From a Pragmatic Lens.

Annalisa Na, Justine S Sefcik, Laura N Gitlin
{"title":"Nonpharmacological Pain Management for People With Dementia: A Scoping Review Mapping Research Gaps From a Pragmatic Lens.","authors":"Annalisa Na, Justine S Sefcik, Laura N Gitlin","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nonpharmacological pain interventions are effective but underutilized in people living with dementia (PLWD). Leveraging an implementation lens (i.e., the Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials [RAPT] model) to scope the literature may reveal research gaps contributing to this underutilization. The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the literature, map the studies to the RAPT model, and identify research gaps.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA- ScR) guidelines, two reviewers screened, collated, extracted, and mapped data from eligible studies to the 9 RAPT domains (implementation, evidence, risk, feasibility, measurement, cost, acceptability, alignment, and impact). We used descriptive statistics to summarize the studies and the extent to which interventions were mapped to RAPT domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 81 studies covering 24 interventions, 64% were in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), 66% reported unspecified pain, and 32% reported unspecified dementia. Of the interventions, the Tailored Activities Program had literature informing the most domains (6 domains), followed by exercise, pain education, and stepwise approaches (5 domains each). Most studies were mapped to the evidence domain (33 studies), few studies to feasibility (7 studies), acceptability (5 studies), and implementation (10 studies) domains, one study to cost, and no studies to risk or impact.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite the variety of nonpharmacological pain interventions studied, there is a notable lack of literature that aligns with the RAPT model. Furthermore, there is limited consideration of the specific pain and dementia conditions, as well as the diverse environments where PLWD reside and receive care. These gaps underscore the need for robust and holistic research to ensure pain interventions are effectively tailored and implemented for PLWD. Starting with acceptability and feasibility studies can establish a foundation for building robust evidence, ensuring practical and well-received interventions before larger-scale clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nonpharmacological pain interventions are effective but underutilized in people living with dementia (PLWD). Leveraging an implementation lens (i.e., the Readiness Assessment for Pragmatic Trials [RAPT] model) to scope the literature may reveal research gaps contributing to this underutilization. The purpose of this scoping review is to summarize the literature, map the studies to the RAPT model, and identify research gaps.

Methods: Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA- ScR) guidelines, two reviewers screened, collated, extracted, and mapped data from eligible studies to the 9 RAPT domains (implementation, evidence, risk, feasibility, measurement, cost, acceptability, alignment, and impact). We used descriptive statistics to summarize the studies and the extent to which interventions were mapped to RAPT domains.

Results: Of 81 studies covering 24 interventions, 64% were in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), 66% reported unspecified pain, and 32% reported unspecified dementia. Of the interventions, the Tailored Activities Program had literature informing the most domains (6 domains), followed by exercise, pain education, and stepwise approaches (5 domains each). Most studies were mapped to the evidence domain (33 studies), few studies to feasibility (7 studies), acceptability (5 studies), and implementation (10 studies) domains, one study to cost, and no studies to risk or impact.

Conclusion: Despite the variety of nonpharmacological pain interventions studied, there is a notable lack of literature that aligns with the RAPT model. Furthermore, there is limited consideration of the specific pain and dementia conditions, as well as the diverse environments where PLWD reside and receive care. These gaps underscore the need for robust and holistic research to ensure pain interventions are effectively tailored and implemented for PLWD. Starting with acceptability and feasibility studies can establish a foundation for building robust evidence, ensuring practical and well-received interventions before larger-scale clinical trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Comment on: "Neuropsychiatric Presentations of Common Dementia Syndromes: A Concise Review for Primary Care Team Members". Nonpharmacological Pain Management for People With Dementia: A Scoping Review Mapping Research Gaps From a Pragmatic Lens. Reply to: Comment on: Neuropsychiatric Presentations of Common Dementia Syndromes: A Concise Review for Primary Care Team Members. A Pause. Fathers and Sons.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1