Comparison between group and personal rehabilitation for dementia in a geriatric health service facility: single‐blinded randomized controlled study. Issue 3 (9th September 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tanaka, Shigeya; Honda, Shin; Nakano, Hajime; Sato, Yuko; Araya, Kazufumi; Yamaguchi, Haruyasu
• Is Part Of: Psychogeriatrics. Volume 17:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 177
• Page End: 185
• Publication Date: 2016-09-09
• Subjects: brain‐activating rehabilitation -- dementia -- geriatric health service facility -- group intervention -- rehabilitation; Geriatric psychiatry -- Periodicals; 618.9768905
• DOI: 10.1111/psyg.12212
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1346-3500

Abstract

Abstract : Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of rehabilitation involving group and personal sessions on demented participants. Methods: This single‐blinded randomized controlled trial included 60 elderly participants with dementia in a geriatric health service facility, or R oken . Staff members, who did not participate in the intervention, examined cognitive function, mood, communication ability, severity of dementia, objective quality of life, vitality, and daily behaviour. After a baseline assessment, participants were randomly divided into three groups: (i) group intervention; (ii) personal intervention; and (iii) control. The 1‐h group intervention (3–5 subjects) and 20‐min personal intervention (one staff member per participant) were performed twice a week for 12 weeks (24 total sessions). The cognitive rehabilitation programme consisted of reminiscence, reality orientation, and physical exercise, and it was based on five principles of brain‐activating rehabilitation; (i) pleasant atmosphere; (ii) communication; (iii) social roles; (iv) praising; and (v) errorless support. Data were analyzed after the second assessment. Results: Outcome measures were analyzed in 43 participants—14 in the control group, 13 in group intervention, and 16 in personal intervention. Repeated measureancova showed a significant interaction for cognitive function score (Mini‐Mental State Examination) between group intervention and controls ( F = 5.535, P = 0.029). In the post‐hoc analysis, group intervention showed significant improvement ( P = 0.016). Global severity of dementia tended to improve ( P = 0.094) in group intervention compared to control (Mann–Whitney U ‐test). There were no significant interactions or improvements for other measurements. Conclusions: Group rehabilitation for dementia is more effective for improving cognitive function and global severity of dementia than personal rehabilitation in Roken .