The impact of control conditions on the interpretation of multi‐sensory technology interventions. (7th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Perion, Jennifer; Steiner, Victoria; McBride, Kimberly; Saltzman, Barbara; Kinney, Jennifer
• Is Part Of: Alzheimer's & dementia. Volume 16(2020)Supplement 11
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-12-07
• Subjects: Alzheimer's disease -- Periodicals; Alzheimer Disease -- Periodicals; Dementia -- Periodicals; Démence; Maladie d'Alzheimer; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.83
• DOI: 10.1002/alz.043314
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1552-5260

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Multi‐sensory interventions utilizing technological elements (e.g. projectors, robotics) create opportunities for increased engagement and well‐being among nursing home residents with dementia. When evaluating multi‐sensory technology, researchers often employ a control condition to measure differences in positive and negative affect. A study's quality may be compromised when researchers fail to provide sufficient details about control conditions, or when inappropriate control activities are chosen. Method: University research databases were searched for peer‐reviewed studies that utilized multi‐sensory technology aimed at reducing problem behaviors among nursing home residents with moderate‐to‐severe dementia. Articles were limited to experimental or quasi‐experimental designs published since 2007. A descriptive analysis of the methodologies used in the relevant articles was conducted. Result: Eleven articles met the selection criteria. A review of the reported design and data collection procedures for the studies revealed three common practices that may impact interpretation of the data. Usual care: Five of the eleven studies (45%) included observation of participants' routine activities for comparison; however, only two provided more than a sentence to describe the control activities, while the other three simply stated that participants spent an equivalent amount of time engaged in "usual care." Recall of behaviors: Three studies (27%) relied on nursing staff recall of behaviors reported pre‐ and post‐intervention. Direct observations were not recorded, and the residents' normal routines were not described. No control: Three studies (27%) introduced novel non‐technological activities such as personalized gardening for comparison to the intervention. No control activity was included in the study design. Conclusion: A review of eleven studies conducted to evaluate innovative multi‐sensory technology revealed a lack of consistent design and reporting practices. Publications providing scant details regarding normal routines or a definition of "usual care" create difficulties for researchers who may wish to evaluate, replicate, or improve upon the intervention. Additionally, using a novel non‐technological activity for comparison may also affect engagement and the ability to draw accurate conclusions about the intervention's efficacy. Researchers who wish to determine the effectiveness of multi‐sensory technology interventions with nursing home residents should carefully select and fully justify the choice of control conditions.