Reminiscence
Download >>> https://cinurl.com/2tkCgV
Reminiscing can be a good way to make connections between people from different backgrounds or cultures or between staff and service users. When choosing topics or themes for reminiscence in groups, think about ways in which you can include people who may be in a minority, for example, someone who is a different religion or culture or someone who is lesbian or gay.
Age Exchange is a national charity at the forefront of reminiscence work. It produces a wide range of publications and resources on reminiscence, offers training and runs community-based projects, all based from a vibrant base in south east London.
Sporting Memories Foundation: This organisation promotes the use of sporting memories to improve the wellbeing of people through conversation and reminiscence. Its website contains a huge collection of sporting memories contributed from a wide range of people.
Background: Reminiscence Therapy (RT) involves the discussion of past activities, events and experiences with another person or group of people, usually with the aid of tangible prompts such as photographs, household and other familiar items from the past, music and archive sound recordings. Reminiscence groups typically involve group meetings in which participants are encouraged to talk about past events at least once a week. Life review typically involves individual sessions, in which the person is guided chronologically through life experiences, encouraged to evaluate them, and may produce a life story book. Family care-givers are increasingly involved in reminiscence therapy. Reminiscence therapy is one of the most popular psychosocial interventions in dementia care, and is highly rated by staff and participants. There is some evidence to suggest it is effective in improving mood in older people without dementia. Its effects on mood, cognition and well-being in dementia are less well understood.
Search strategy: The trials were identified from a search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 4 May 2004 using the term \"reminiscence\". The CDCIG Specialized Register contains records from all major health care databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLIT, CINAHL) and many ongoing trials databases and is regularly updated. We contacted specialists in the field and also searched relevant Internet sites. We hand-searched Aging and Mental Health, the Gerontologist, Journal of Gerontology, Current Opinion in Psychiatry, Current Research in Britain: Social Sciences, British Psychological Society conference proceedings and Reminiscence database.
Authors' conclusions: Whilst four suitable randomized controlled trials looking at reminiscence therapy for dementia were found, several were very small studies, or were of relatively low quality, and each examined different types of reminiscence work. Although there are a number of promising indications, in view of the limited number and quality of studies, the variation in types of reminiscence work reported and the variation in results between studies, the review highlights the urgent need for more and better designed trials so that more robust conclusions may be drawn.
Background: This updated Cochrane Review of reminiscence therapy (RT) for dementia was first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. RT involves the discussion of memories and past experiences with other people using tangible prompts such as photographs or music to evoke memories and stimulate conversation. RT is implemented widely in a range of settings using a variety of formats.
Main results: We included 22 studies involving 1972 people with dementia. Meta-analyses included data from 16 studies (1749 participants). Apart from six studies with risk of selection bias, the overall risk of bias in the studies was low.Overall, moderate quality evidence indicated RT did not have an important effect on QoL immediately after the intervention period compared with no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.33; I2 = 59%; 8 studies; 1060 participants). Inconsistency between studies mainly related to the study setting. There was probably a slight benefit in favour of RT in care homes post-treatment (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 3 studies; 193 participants), but little or no difference in QoL in community settings (867 participants from five studies).For cognitive measures, there was high quality evidence for a very small benefit, of doubtful clinical importance, associated with reminiscence at the end of treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; 14 studies; 1219 participants), but little or no difference at longer-term follow-up. There was a probable slight improvement for individual reminiscence and for care homes when analysed separately, but little or no difference for community settings or for group studies. Nine studies included the widely used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a cognitive measure, and, on this scale, there was high quality evidence for an improvement at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) 1.87 points, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.20; 437 participants). There was a similar effect at longer-term follow-up, but the quality of evidence for this analysis was low (1.8 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 3.65).For communication measures, there may have been a benefit of RT at the end of treatment (SMD -0.51 points, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.05; I2 = 62%; negative scores indicated improvement; 6 studies; 249 participants), but there was inconsistency between studies, related to the RT modality. At follow-up, there was probably a slight benefit of RT (SMD -0.49 points, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.21; 4 studies; 204 participants). Effects were uncertain for individual RT, with very low quality evidence available. For reminiscence groups, evidence of moderate quality indicated a probable slight benefit immediately (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06; 4 studies; 153 participants), and at later follow-up. Community participants probably benefited at end of treatment and follow-up. For care home participants, the results were inconsistent between studies and, while there may be an improvement at follow-up, at the end of treatment the evidence quality was very low and effects were uncertain.Other outcome domains examined for people with dementia included mood, functioning in daily activities, agitation/irritability and relationship quality. There were no clear effects in these domains. Individual reminiscence was probably associated with a slight benefit on depression scales, although its clinical importance was uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.06; 4 studies; 131 participants). We found no evidence of any harmful effects on people with dementia.We also looked at outcomes for carers, including stress, mood and quality of relationship with the person with dementia (from the carer's perspective). We found no evidence of effects on carers other than a potential adverse outcome related to carer anxiety at longer-term follow-up, based on two studies that had involved the carer jointly in reminiscence groups with people with dementia. The control group carers were probably slightly less anxious (MD 0.56 points, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30; 464 participants), but this result is of uncertain clinical importance, and is also consistent with little or no effect.
Authors' conclusions: The effects of reminiscence interventions are inconsistent, often small in size and can differ considerably across settings and modalities. RT has some positive effects on people with dementia in the domains of QoL, cognition, communication and mood. Care home studies show the widest range of benefits, including QoL, cognition and communication (at follow-up). Individual RT is associated with probable benefits for cognition and mood. Group RT and a community setting are associated with probable improvements in communication. The wide range of RT interventions across studies makes comparisons and evaluation of relative benefits difficult. Treatment protocols are not described in sufficient detail in many publications. There have been welcome improvements in the quality of research on RT since the previous version of this review, although there still remains a need for more randomised controlled trials following clear, detailed treatment protocols, especially allowing the effects of simple and integrative RT to be compared.
We wanted to find out what effect reminiscence therapy (RT) has on people with dementia. In particular, we were interested in effects on quality of life, communication, cognition (the general ability to think and remember), mood, daily activities and relationships. We were also interested in any effects on carers.
We found no effect of RT on family carers other than a suggestion that it made carers slightly more anxious in two large studies of joint reminiscence work. In this type of RT, the carers and the people with dementia were both directly involved in the reminiscence sessions.
Little evidence has emerged regarding the characteristics of people with dementia that might be associated with better outcomes, with the exception of the suggestion that reminiscence has a stronger effect on QoL in a care home context, as opposed to community settings. There clearly are differences between studies in the extent (and direction of changes) demonstrated by the high levels of heterogeneity evident in several analyses. However, many of these differences are yet to be explained. Some studies included only people with AD; others only recruited people with VD; others included any form of dementia. No clear differences in outcomes related to dementia type emerged from the analyses undertaken, and similarly there were few indications of the effects of dementia severity.
Subramaniam 2012 focused on individual reminiscence work, identifying five RCTs, three of which were included in the current review. They concluded that there was a consistent pattern emerging, with those studies offering 'individual reminiscence work that includes a life review process, uses specific memory triggers and results in the production of a life story book' having positive psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia. In contrast, where reminiscence was more general, evidence for efficacy was not apparent. Unfortunately, there are still insufficient studies of integrative reminiscence work to confirm this early conclusion. 59ce067264