Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 41705559

Views and Experiences of People With Dementia, Informal Caregivers and Professionals on Eating and Drinking Difficulties: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

Mingjin Cai·Xiaoyan Gong·Yi Yang·Haiyan He·Xuehua Wu
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AIM: This study aims to explore the views and experiences of people with dementia, informal caregivers and professionals regarding eating and drinking difficulties. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review was conducted. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were used to conduct this systematic review. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, and the data were thematically synthesised using Thomas and Harden's three-stage method. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were searched from their respective inception dates to August 2025 to identify relevant studies. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the 16 included studies identified four key themes: (1) Physiological and psychological changes in people with dementia and caregivers; (2) factors influencing eating and drinking in people with dementia; (3) needs and recommendations for people with dementia, informal caregivers and professionals; (4) selection of eating methods for end-stage people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Eating and drinking difficulties affect the well-being of both patients and caregivers. A good dining environment improves mealtime pleasure but demands caregivers' time and energy. All parties emphasised the importance of effective communication. In end-stage dementia, professional assistance is crucial for enteral nutrition decisions. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Collaboration among patients, caregivers and professionals is vital for creating tailored nutritional plans and improving mealtime environments, thereby enhancing nutritional intake. In advanced dementia, providers must provide balanced information on comfort feeding versus enteral nutrition to aid decision-making. IMPACT: What problems were addressed in this study? This study addressed the lack of a consolidated, tri-perspective understanding of eating and drinking difficulties in dementia care settings. What are the main findings? Four key themes were identified: physiological and psychological changes, influencing factors, stakeholder needs and end-of-life decision-making. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? This will impact care practices for people with dementia and inform the training and support of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals.

Explore related subjects

HumansCaregiversDementiaQualitative ResearchMaleFemaleAgedAged, 80 and overEatingMiddle Agedeating and drinking difficultiesexperiencesinformal caregiversnursingpeople with dementiaprofessionalsqualitativesystematic reviewviewsJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Mingjin Cai, Xiaoyan Gong, Yi Yang, Haiyan He, Xuehua Wu. 2026-02-18. Views and Experiences of People With Dementia, Informal Caregivers and Professionals on Eating and Drinking Difficulties: A Qualitative Systematic Review.. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70547

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Aged subjectAged, 80 and over subjectEating subjectFemale subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectJournal Article; Systematic Review; Review resourceMale subjectMiddle Aged subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Informal Caregivers of People With Dementia: A Systematic Review.

AIM: To summarize the current evidence on reducing loneliness among informal caregivers of people with dementia, such as family members or friends. DESIGN: A systematic review. METHODS: The methodological quality was evaluated using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the revised JBI critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Data were extracted as predefined and synthesized narratively. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist was used to report the intervention characteristics. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science Core Collection) were searched for studies published in peer-reviewed English journals from the inception of each database until 28 January 2024. RESULTS: Eight studies were included in this review, published between 2002 and 2023, with three being randomized controlled trials. All included interventions were psychosocial. Only one study reported significant improvements in loneliness. Five studies utilized remote and online interventions, such as social networking, psychotherapy, and online social support. Interventions varied in their impact on secondary outcomes, including stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and caregiver burden. Four studies demonstrated a positive effect on caregiver stress levels. One pilot trial reported a positive impact on depressive symptoms, and another study noted potential improvements in anxiety. One pilot study reported an average improvement in caregiver burden. CONCLUSION: While the evidence is insufficient for conclusive statements, this systematic review suggests potential benefits of interventions to reduce loneliness and improve mental health among these caregivers. It highlights the promise of remote interventions in addressing loneliness among dementia caregivers. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: The findings suggest that tailored interventions, especially those delivered remotely, can enhance the support provided to caregivers, potentially improving their mental health and overall well-being. REPORTING METHOD: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA statement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Intervention Without Borders - an Automated Self-Guided AI-Enhanced Psychoeducation Intervention for Dementia Caregivers: Parallel-Group Randomized Waitlist-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a fully automated, self-guided intervention (PDC30) could improve caregiver well-being over a 1-month waitlist control in an international sample. DESIGN: Randomized waitlist-controlled trial. SETTING: Web-based platform accessible globally. PARTICIPANTS: 441 individuals responded to study promotion on the internet, of whom 274 from 43 countries met the study criteria and were randomized. Eligible participants were adults providing ≥10 care hours weekly to community-dwelling relatives with dementia, scoring ≥5 on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and without recent caregiver intervention. INTERVENTION: Available 24/7, PDC30 is a self-guided, automated intervention consisting of a Guidebook, an AI-powered counseling chatbot, and interactive applications for cognitive-behavioral techniques, relaxation, and caregiver-recipient bonding. MEASUREMENTS: At baseline and follow-ups at 1, 2, and 3 months, depression was assessed by PHQ-9. Secondary outcomes were measured with validated brief versions of anxiety, burden, and positive gains. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analysis using mixed-effects regression showed treatment x time2 effects on all outcomes except anxiety. At 1-month follow-up, coinciding with exclusive access to PDC30, intervention caregivers showed significant improvements in depression (d = -0.37), burden (d = -0.34), and positive gains (d = 0.42). The differences mostly disappeared after control participants received the intervention, while improvements in both groups were sustained thereafter. Participants reported using the website several times weekly, were generally satisfied with it, and found the chatbot most helpful. CONCLUSIONS: The effects on depression and other outcomes were consistent with those observed for in-person programs, suggesting the viability of well-designed automated intervention. The study demonstrates the feasibility, acceptability, and potential global health impact of PDC30.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Implementation outcomes of a dementia-focused intervention for family care partners and clinicians in home hospice care.

OBJECTIVES: End-of-life care for persons living with dementia in home hospice relies heavily on coordination between family care partners (FCPs) and clinicians (e.g., hospice social workers and nurses). FCPs and clinicians have reported support and knowledge gaps in end-of-life dementia care. Interventions are needed to improve FCPs' support and clinicians' educational gaps. METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was designed to examine implementation outcomes for a dementia-focused end-of-life intervention for FCPs (n = 37) and clinicians (n = 15). Data on survey completion and acceptability were collected at baseline, during 4 follow-up visits, and at the conclusion of the study. RESULTS: Twenty-eight (75%) caregivers completed the post-study survey, and 10 (27%) reported using the structured worksheet. Thirteen (87%) clinicians completed the post-training survey, 8 (53%) completed the post-study survey, and 8 (100%) used the worksheet. Clinicians (n = 8) were satisfied or highly satisfied with the instructional videos, and half (50%) used the information frequently with patients. Both groups reported the worksheet helpful, easy to use, and satisfactory, though clinicians rated helpfulness slightly higher (mean = 3.88 vs. 3.70 for FCPs). Clinicians liked the worksheet's structured guidance and the enhanced collaboration. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study provides preliminary evidence for implementation outcomes of a dementia-focused end-of-life intervention in home hospice. Findings suggest the intervention can be implemented in a hospice setting, with moderate worksheet uptake and perceived value among FCPs and clinicians.

Humans↗