Effective for Whom? A Review of Psychological and Social Intervention Recommendations in European Dementia Care Guidelines Through the Lenses of Social Health and Intersectionality

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11240%2F25%3A10514431" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11240/25:10514431 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=nBxd2L2OlV" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=nBxd2L2OlV</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs15040457" target="_blank" >10.3390/bs15040457</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

Effective for Whom? A Review of Psychological and Social Intervention Recommendations in European Dementia Care Guidelines Through the Lenses of Social Health and Intersectionality

Original language description

In dementia care, access to effective psychosocial interventions is often addressed by evidence-based guidelines for care providers. However, it is unclear if current guidelines consider personal characteristics that may impact intervention effectiveness. This study investigates if, and within what framing, dementia care guidelines in Europe address what is effective and for whom. A review of 47 guidelines from 12 European countries was conducted. Content analysis focused on (i) if guidelines recommended specific psychosocial interventions, and how guidelines referred to (ii) social health, (iii) the intersection of social positioning, and (iv) inequities in care or outcomes. Thirty-five guidelines (74%) recommended specific psychosocial interventions. Around half referenced aspects of social health and of intersectionality. Thirteen guidelines (28%) referenced inequities. Social health was not explicitly recognised as a mechanism of psychosocial interventions. Only age and comorbidity were consistently considered to impact interventions&apos; effectiveness. Inequities were acknowledged to arise from within-country regional variations and individual economic status, but were not linked to (intersectional) individual societal positions such as sex and/or gender, sexuality, and/or religion. The results between European countries were heterogeneous. Current guidelines offer little insight into what works for whom. Policymakers and guideline developers should work with researchers, generating and translating evidence into policy.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

50101 - Psychology (including human - machine relations)

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2025

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

Behavioral Sciences

ISSN

2076-328X

e-ISSN

2076-328X

Volume of the periodical

15

Issue of the periodical within the volume

4

Country of publishing house

CH - SWITZERLAND

Number of pages

19

Pages from-to

457

UT code for WoS article

001477324300001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

2-s2.0-105003486126