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

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50101 - Psychology (including human - machine relations)

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2025

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

Behavioral Sciences

ISSN

2076-328X

e-ISSN

2076-328X

Svazek periodika

15

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

CH - Švýcarská konfederace

Počet stran výsledku

19

Strana od-do

457

Kód UT WoS článku

001477324300001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-105003486126