Reminiscence Therapy for Dementia
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Woods, B., O'Philbin, L., et al. (2018).
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD001120.
This update of the Woods et al. 2005 meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of reminiscence therapy on quality of life, cognition, commnication, and behavior outcomes for individuals with dementia.
The Cochrane Collaboration; Bangor University (United Kingdom); Centre for Ageing & Dementia Research, Health & Care Research Wales (United Kingdom); KESS 2, European Social Fund (United Kingdom); National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom)
The data in this systematic review are available elsewhere in the Evidence Maps. See the Associated Article(s) section below for more information.
Up to April 2017
Randomized controlled trials
22; 16 included in meta-analysis
The findings suggest a "probable slight benefit to cognition" when receiving reminiscence therapy in home compared to community-based settings (p. 39). A "probable effect" of community-based reminiscence therapy was noted post-treatment and at follow-up for communication skills (p. 39). Findings were "less certain" in home settings (p. 39).
A "probable slight benefit" was noted in improved cognition after individual vs. group reminiscence therapy for individuals with dementia (p. 39). In contrast, a group format was associated with improved communication skills compared to individual treatment. A "probable slight benefit was noted in communication "immediately and a benefit within a clinically important range at follow-up" (p. 39).
Moderate quality evidence suggests that reminiscence therapy does not consistently improve well-being and quality of life for individuals with dementia. There was high quality evidence that reminiscence therapy has a small beneficial effect on cognition post-treatment (effect size = 0.11; CI 0.00 to 0.23); however, improvements were not maintained after longer periods of follow-up (effect size = 0.04; CI -0.09 to 0.17) and the small benefits were of "doubtful clinical importance" (p. 2). A small beneficial effect was also noted for improved communication and interaction (effect size = -0.51; CI -0.97-0.05) with benefits maintained at follow-up (effect size = -0.49; CI -0.77-0.21). Authors noted that negative scores indicated improved communication.
