ReviewJournal of advanced nursing2026
How Can We Improve Personal Care Interactions to Reduce Care Refusals From People With Dementia? A Realist Synthesis.
Review in Journal of advanced nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How Can We Improve Personal Care Interactions to Reduce Care Refusals From People With Dementia? A Realist Synthesis.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo identify strategies and mechanisms of interventions between caregivers and people with dementia that contribute to reducing refusals of care and determine how they work, in which contexts, why and for whom.
designRealist synthesis.
methodsThere were three stages: (1) initial programme theory development and prioritisation through assessing video-recorded personal care interactions and interview transcripts; scoping the literature and team discussions, (2) literature search, review and synthesis and (3) realist interviews with stakeholders and refinement of evidence-based programme theories. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Ultimate, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science; date range: 2000-2024.
resultsA total of 71 sources were included in the synthesis, and interviews with 15 stakeholders. Eight programme theories were generated, evidenced and refined, each incorporating multiple caregiver strategies. The overarching mechanism which made people with dementia more likely to accept assistance with personal care was trusting the caregiver and feeling safe. Seven mechanisms fed into this: a sense of control, positive connection, care feeling manageable, working together, engaging with the care activity (or something non-care related), comfort and needs being known and addressed.
conclusionRefusals of care from people with dementia can be reduced by multiple caregiver strategies related to communication, approach, the type of care offered and the care interaction process. Mechanisms reflect relational aspects: the quality of the caregiver/person partnership and making the person with dementia feel safe. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings provide programme theories and practical care strategies which could be helpful for those, such as nurses, working to improve personal care practices for people with dementia. PATIENT CONTRIBUTIONS: Public representatives advised the study throughout, providing advice on initial programme theories, evidence-based programme theories and synthesised stakeholder evidence. REPORTING
methodThis synthesis uses the publication standards for realist synthesis (RAMESES 1).
trial registrationPROSPERO: 2024 CRD42024496072.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.