Effective for whom? A review of psychological and social intervention recommendations in European dementia care guidelines through the lenses of social health and intersectionality

Neal, David, Bartels, Sara Laureen, Berdai Chaouni, Saloua, Caprioli, Thais, Comas-Herrera, Adelina ORCID: 0000-0002-9860-9062, Chattat, Rabih, Diaz, Ana, Dröes, Rose-Marie, Faulkner, Thomas, Felding, Simone Anna, Franco-Martin, Manuel, Giebel, Clarissa, Gonçalves-Pereira, Manuel, Hesse, Samira, Holmerova, Iva, Koh, Wei Qi, Mena, Emily, Misonow, Julia, Mkrtchyan, Anahit, Müller, Nicole, Roes, Martina, van Rompuy, Isabeau, Rymaszewska, Joanna, Szcześniak, Dorota, Thyrian, Jochen René, de Vugt, Marjolein, Walden, Amy, Wolf-Ostermann, Karin and Hopper, Louise (2025) Effective for whom? A review of psychological and social intervention recommendations in European dementia care guidelines through the lenses of social health and intersectionality. Behavioral Sciences, 15 (4). ISSN 2076-328X

Text (behavsci-15-00457-v3) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (985kB)

Abstract

In dementia care, access to effective psychosocial interventions is often addressed by evidence-based guidelines for care providers. However, it is unclear if current guidelines consider personal characteristics that may impact intervention effectiveness. This study investigates if, and within what framing, dementia care guidelines in Europe address what is effective and for whom. A review of 47 guidelines from 12 European countries was conducted. Content analysis focused on (i) if guidelines recommended specific psychosocial interventions, and how guidelines referred to (ii) social health, (iii) the intersection of social positioning, and (iv) inequities in care or outcomes. Thirty-five guidelines (74%) recommended specific psychosocial interventions. Around half referenced aspects of social health and of intersectionality. Thirteen guidelines (28%) referenced inequities. Social health was not explicitly recognised as a mechanism of psychosocial interventions. Only age and comorbidity were consistently considered to impact interventions’ effectiveness. Inequities were acknowledged to arise from within-country regional variations and individual economic status, but were not linked to (intersectional) individual societal positions such as sex and/or gender, sexuality, and/or religion. The results between European countries were heterogeneous. Current guidelines offer little insight into what works for whom. Policymakers and guideline developers should work with researchers, generating and translating evidence into policy.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2025 by the authors
Divisions:	Care Policy and Evaluation Centre
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
Date Deposited:	24 Apr 2025 10:48
Last Modified:	24 Apr 2025 10:48
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/127973

Actions (login required)

View Item