Abstract
Background Dementia prevalence is increasing with no cure at present. Drug therapies have limited efficacy and potential side effects. People with dementia are often offered non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life and relieve symptoms. Identifying which interventions are cost-effective is important due to finite resources in healthcare services.
Aims To review published economic evaluations of community non-pharmacological interventions for people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia and assess usefulness for decision making in health services.
Methods Systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021252999) included economic evaluations of non-pharmacological interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment with a narrative approach to data synthesis. Exclusions: interventions for dementia prevention/early detection or end of life care. Databases searched: Academic search premier, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Psychology and behavioural sciences collection, PsycArticles, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Business Source Premier and Regional Business News; timeframe 01 January 2011 to 30 June 2021 (13 September 2021 for Embase). Study quality assessed using CHEERS.
Results Included thirty-two studies and five reviews, evaluating community dementia interventions worldwide across several distinct forms of care: physical activity, cognition, training, multi-disciplinary interventions and other (telecare/assistive technology, specialist dementia care, group living, home care versus care home). No single intervention was shown to be cost-effective across all economic evaluations.
Conclusion More economic evidence on the cost-effectiveness of specific dementia care interventions is needed, with consistency around measurement of costs and outcomes data. Better information and higher-quality studies could improve decision makers’ confidence to promote future cost-effective dementia interventions.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the Institute for Lifecourse Development, and a Vice Chancellor's Scholarship from the University of Greenwich, in partnership with the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Kent, Surrey & Sussex (ARC KSS).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Declaration of interests: No authors have interests to declare
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
