Reminiscence Therapy Delivery Formats for Older Adults With Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Pu, Y., Zhang, G., et al. (2025).
International Journal of Nursing Studies, 168, 105085.
<div>This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the effects of delivery format of reminiscence therapy on outcomes for individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.</div>
Ministry of Education’s Industry-University Cooperation Collaborative Education Project (China); Educational Commission of Jilin Province of China; Jilin Association for Higher Education (China)
From database inception to March 7, 2025
<div>Randomized-controlled trials</div>
53
<div>Results of the pairwise meta-analysis revealed that reminiscence therapy improved cognitive function as compared to treatment as usual. Specific findings were as follows:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>digital reminiscence therapy (SMD = 2.31);</li>
<li>individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = 1.08); and</li>
<li>group reminiscence therapy (SMD = 0.94).</li>
</ul>
<div>There was not a significant difference between digital reminiscence therapy and individual.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Network meta-analysis showed similar results compared to treatment as usual:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>digital reminiscence therapy ranked highest (SMD = 5.02, SUCRA = 93.6%);</li>
<li>individual reminiscence therapy ranked second (SMD = 3.65, SUCRA = 66.5%); and</li>
<li>group reminiscence therapy ranked third (SMD = 2.67, SUCRA = 39.9%).</li>
</ul>
<div>Noteworthy limitations to this review include the limited number of included articles, lack of long-term follow-up effects, and the potential for publication bias.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>Pairwise meta-analysis of the impact of reminiscence therapy on depressive symptoms as compared to treatment as usual indicated:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>improvement with individual therapy (SMD = -1.06) and</li>
<li>improvement with group reminiscence therapy (SMD = -0.34).</li>
</ul>
<div>Digital reminiscence therapy had better effects than individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = -0.73).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Network meta-analysis revealed better effects on depressive symptoms with reminiscence therapy as compared to treatment as usual for:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>digital reminiscence therapy (SMD = -5.98, SUCRA = 94.9%);</li>
<li>individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = -3.22, SUCRA = 70.0%); and</li>
<li>group reminiscence therapy (SMD = -1.29, SUCRA = 34.3%).</li>
</ul>
<div>Individual reminiscence therapy had better efficacy than group reminiscence therapy (SMD = -1.93).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Noteworthy limitations to this review include the limited number of included articles, lack of long-term follow-up effects, and the potential for publication bias.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>Results of the pairwise meta-analysis for quality of life showed improvement with individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = 1.28) and with group reminiscence therapy (SMD = 0.55) as compared to usual treatment. The network meta-analysis showed better efficacy than treatment as usual with individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = 5.15, SUCRA = 98.3%) and group reminiscence therapy (SMD = 2.85, SUCRA = 51.6%). There was no significant difference between the two.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Noteworthy limitations to this review include the limited number of included articles, lack of long-term follow-up effects, and the potential for publication bias.</div>
<div>Network meta-analysis for adherence showed:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>group reminiscence therapy had better efficacy than treatment as usual (SMD = 1.38);</li>
<li>group reminiscence therapy had better efficacy than individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = 2.36); and</li>
<li>treatment as usual had better efficacy than individual reminiscence therapy (SMD = 1.71).</li>
</ul>
<div>Results also indicated the highest ranking format of delivery was group therapy (SUCRA = 95.6%), followed by digital reminiscence therapy (SUCRA = 34.9%), and individual reminiscence therapy (SUCRA = 12.0%). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Noteworthy limitations to this review include the limited number of included articles, lack of long-term follow-up effects, and the potential for publication bias.</div>
</div>
