Dawn Brooker1. 1. Bradford Dementia Group, School of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Unity Building, Bradford, Yorkshire BD5 0BB, UK. d.j.brooker@bradford.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The published literature on dementia care mapping (DCM) in improving quality of life and quality of care through practice development and research dates back to 1993. The purpose of this review of the research literature is to answer some key questions about the nature of the tool and its efficacy, to inform the ongoing revision of the tool, and to set an agenda for future research. DESIGN AND METHODS: The DCM bibliographic database at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom contains all publications known on DCM (http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/health/dcm). This formed the basis of the review. Texts that specifically examined the efficacy of DCM or in which DCM was used as a main measure in the evaluation or research were reviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-four papers were categorized into five main types: (a) cross-sectional surveys, (b) evaluations of interventions, (c) practice development evaluations, (d) multimethod evaluations, and (e) papers investigating the psychometric properties of DCM. IMPLICATIONS: These publications provide some evidence regarding the efficacy of DCM, issues of validity and reliability, and its use in practice and research. The need for further development and research in a number of key areas is highlighted.
PURPOSE: The published literature on dementia care mapping (DCM) in improving quality of life and quality of care through practice development and research dates back to 1993. The purpose of this review of the research literature is to answer some key questions about the nature of the tool and its efficacy, to inform the ongoing revision of the tool, and to set an agenda for future research. DESIGN AND METHODS: The DCM bibliographic database at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom contains all publications known on DCM (http://www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/health/dcm). This formed the basis of the review. Texts that specifically examined the efficacy of DCM or in which DCM was used as a main measure in the evaluation or research were reviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-four papers were categorized into five main types: (a) cross-sectional surveys, (b) evaluations of interventions, (c) practice development evaluations, (d) multimethod evaluations, and (e) papers investigating the psychometric properties of DCM. IMPLICATIONS: These publications provide some evidence regarding the efficacy of DCM, issues of validity and reliability, and its use in practice and research. The need for further development and research in a number of key areas is highlighted.
Authors: A Lynn Snow; M Lindsey Jacobs; Jennifer A Palmer; Patricia A Parmelee; Rebecca S Allen; Nancy J Wewiorski; Michelle M Hilgeman; Latrice D Vinson; Dan R Berlowitz; Anne D Halli-Tierney; Christine W Hartmann Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2018-03-19
Authors: Abel Toledano-González; Dulce Romero-Ayuso; Dolores Fernández-Pérez; Marta Nieto; Jorge Javier Ricarte; Beatriz Navarro-Bravo; Laura Ros; José Miguel Latorre Journal: Psychol Res Date: 2022-07-20
Authors: Geertje van de Ven; Irena Draskovic; Eddy M M Adang; Rogier A R T Donders; Aukje Post; Sytse U Zuidema; Raymond T C M Koopmans; Myrra J F J Vernooij-Dassen Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Monir Mazaheri; Lars E Eriksson; Alireza Nikbakht Nasrabadi; Helena Sunvisson; Kristiina Heikkilä Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 3.295