Scholarlink

Background <p>Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported the effect of reminiscence therapy (RT) on older adults. However, results highlight inconsistent outcomes. Our aims of this study are to summarize the evidence and evaluate the effectiveness of reminiscence therapy (RT) in older adults by using an umbrella review methodology.</p> Methods <p>An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of reminiscence therapy (RT) on older adults. Ten databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycNet, CNKI, VIP, SinoMed, and Wanfang Database were searched to identify articles in English or Chinese from inception to November 9, 2023. Two authors of this review independently selected the studies, assessed their quality and extracted the data from the included studies. A quality assessment of eligible reviews was conducted using the AMSTAR 2.0 tool, PRISMA, and GRADE tool. Estimated 95% prediction intervals and heterogeneity were also calculated.</p> Results <p>A total of 21 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this umbrella review, examining the effects of RT in older adults. Collectively, these reviews encompassed 246 RCTs involving a total of 18,177 participants and evaluated 12 outcomes, which were classified into 4 domains (emotional outcomes: depression, anxiety, loneliness, apathy and self-esteem; cognitive outcomes: cognitive function; behavioral outcomes: agitation behavior, functional behavior, communication and interaction; overall well-being: quality of life, life satisfaction and well-being). The overall methodological quality of the included reviews was rated as critically low according to the AMSTAR-2.</p> Conclusions <p>While the existing evidence suggests that RT may have potential benefits in enhancing self-esteem, communication and interaction, functional activities, and reducing loneliness, these findings should be interpreted with caution given that most included reviews were rated as critically low quality. Current evidence does not support the effectiveness of RT in improving well-being, agitation behaviors, or apathy, and mixed results were observed for other outcomes. To draw more definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of RT, future research should employ rigorous methodological designs, involve larger and more diverse samples, and ensure longer follow-up periods.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effectiveness of reminiscence therapy on multiple health outcomes for older adults: an umbrella review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月5日

查看全文
  • Yongliang Jiao,
  • Kexin Huang,
  • Hebing Liu,
  • Hayley Gains,
  • Yong Jia,
  • Li Chen

摘要

Background

Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported the effect of reminiscence therapy (RT) on older adults. However, results highlight inconsistent outcomes. Our aims of this study are to summarize the evidence and evaluate the effectiveness of reminiscence therapy (RT) in older adults by using an umbrella review methodology.

Methods

An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of reminiscence therapy (RT) on older adults. Ten databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycNet, CNKI, VIP, SinoMed, and Wanfang Database were searched to identify articles in English or Chinese from inception to November 9, 2023. Two authors of this review independently selected the studies, assessed their quality and extracted the data from the included studies. A quality assessment of eligible reviews was conducted using the AMSTAR 2.0 tool, PRISMA, and GRADE tool. Estimated 95% prediction intervals and heterogeneity were also calculated.

Results

A total of 21 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this umbrella review, examining the effects of RT in older adults. Collectively, these reviews encompassed 246 RCTs involving a total of 18,177 participants and evaluated 12 outcomes, which were classified into 4 domains (emotional outcomes: depression, anxiety, loneliness, apathy and self-esteem; cognitive outcomes: cognitive function; behavioral outcomes: agitation behavior, functional behavior, communication and interaction; overall well-being: quality of life, life satisfaction and well-being). The overall methodological quality of the included reviews was rated as critically low according to the AMSTAR-2.

Conclusions

While the existing evidence suggests that RT may have potential benefits in enhancing self-esteem, communication and interaction, functional activities, and reducing loneliness, these findings should be interpreted with caution given that most included reviews were rated as critically low quality. Current evidence does not support the effectiveness of RT in improving well-being, agitation behaviors, or apathy, and mixed results were observed for other outcomes. To draw more definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of RT, future research should employ rigorous methodological designs, involve larger and more diverse samples, and ensure longer follow-up periods.