Table 3.
Study Results.
| Authors, country and year of publication | N | Mean age (years) | Intervention effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chao et al, Taiwan, 2006 | 18 | 79.6 (experimental group), 76.9 (control group) | Levels of depression, self-esteem, and life satisfaction all showed an improvement in the experimental group. Only the variable of self-esteem achieved a significant level of improvement (P = .001). In the control group, only the self-esteem variable showed improvement, but this was not statistically significant. |
| Chiang et al, Taiwan, 2009 | 92 | 77.4 (experimental group), 77.1 (control group) | Average depression score in the experimental group decreased from 19.11 points in the pretest to 16.18 and 15.49 points after intervention and 3 months follow-up, respectively. The difference of the depression status in the posttest and follow-up tests differed significantly between experimental and control groups (z = −7.09, P < .0001; z = −7.82, P < .0001). The average psychological well-being score fell from 27.09 points to 24.13 and 23.91 points in the experimental group right after reminiscence therapy and 3 months follow-up, and psychological well-being in the follow-up tests was significantly different between groups (z = − 10.25, P < .0001; z = −10.63, P < .0001). The average loneliness score declined from 42.24 points to 34.82 and 35 points in the experimental group right after reminiscence therapy and 3 months follow-up, indicating that the feeling of loneliness improved from moderate to mild. And likewise, the difference in the feeling of loneliness in the follow-up tests was significant between the groups (z = −27.26, P < .0001; z = −22.75, P < .0001). |
| Haslam et al, the United Kingdom, 2010 | 73 | Not reported | Cognitive performance: a significant main effect of treatment condition on the ACE-R, F(2, 71) = 7.29, P = .001, effect size r = .41. Post hoc analysis indicated that those who participated in group reminiscence (GR) showed a significant improvement in cognitive performance relative to those who either took part in individual reminiscence (IR) (P = .001) or played Skittles (GC; P = .005). Well-being: a significant main effect for experimental condition on this combined scale, F(2, 71) = 3.36, P = .04, effect size r = .29. Post hoc analysis indicated that playing Skittles (GC) led to significant improvements in well-being relative to participating in either GR (P = .03) or IR (P = .019). Identity: on the measure of social group homogeneity (ie, identification), there was a significant main effect for treatment condition, F(2, 71) = 3.02, P = .05, effect size r = .28. Post hoc analysis indicated that after the intervention, residents who had received IR experienced a reduction in identification relative to residents who received either GR (P = .03) or Skittles (group control (GC); P = .047). |
| Karimi et al, Iran, 2010 | 29 | 70.5 | Analysis of changes from pretest to posttest revealed that integrative reminiscence therapy led to statistically significant reduction in symptoms of depression in contrast with the control group (F = 27.095, P < .001). Although instrumental reminiscence therapy also reduced depressive symptoms, this improvement was not statistically significant compared with the control group (effect size and P value not reported). |
| Serrani Azcurra, Argentina, 2012 | 135 | 85.7 | Significant differences in the intervention group between baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months in the SES (effect size = 0.267), and for the SRQoL significant differences between 12 weeks and 6 months (effect size = 0.450). Logistic regression analyses showed that predictors of change in the SRQoL were associated with fewer baseline anxiety symptoms and depression scores. |
| Stinson et al, the United States, 2005 | 24 | 82.2 | There were no overall statistically significant differences in self-transcendence between the 2 groups (reminiscence vs activity) or across the 3 time periods (baseline, 3 and 6 weeks). However, there was a nonsignificant trend for the activity group to have lower self-transcendence scores than the reminiscence group. There were no overall statistical differences in depression between the 2 groups (reminiscence vs activity) or across the 3 time periods (baseline, 3 and 6 weeks). However, there was a trend for the reminiscence group to have lower depression scores than the activity group. |
| Tsai et al, Taiwan, 2010 | 57 | 74.4 (experimental group), 78.5 (control group) | For depressive status, the mean change in the GDS scores at 3 months after baseline was shown by generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis to be 1.4 points lower for the experimental group than for the control group, a significant difference (P = .02). For loneliness status, the change in the mean UCLA Loneliness Scale scores was significantly different in the experimental group from that of the control group at both 1 week (–1.21, P = .02) and 3 months (–2.84, P = .03). As for social support, the changes in mean appraisal and emotional social support scores in the experimental group were significantly different from those in the control group both at 1 week (0.42, 0.39; P < .01, P = .01) and 3 months (0.61, 0.68; P < .01, P < .01) after baseline. |
| Winningham et al, the United States, 2008 | 58 | 82.1 | The CEP group’s SS-A scores did not change over time, t(28) = 1.34; P = .19; however, the control group had a significant decrease in SS-A scores from Time 1 to Time 2, t(27) = 3.46; P < .002. The CEP group’s SS-B scores did not change over time: t(28) = 0.15; P = .88; however, the control group had a significant decrease in SS-B scores from Time 1 to Time 2: t(28) = 3.57; P = .001. The CEP group’s loneliness scores did not change over time: t(28) = 1.35; P = .19; however, the control group had a significant increase in loneliness scores from Time 1 to Time 2: t(28) = 1.96; P = .06. |
| Theurer et al, Canada, 2014 | 72 | Not reported (55.4% were 85 or older) | Resident reports and observations indicate positive benefits including a decrease in loneliness, the development of friendships, and increased coping skills, understanding, and support. Participating staff reported numerous benefits and described how the unique group structure fosters active participation of residents with moderate-severe cognitive impairment. |
| Gudex et al, Denmark, 2010 | 348 | 82.3 | Most staff in the intervention group considered reminiscence a useful tool that improved their communication with residents, and that they would recommend it to other nursing homes. There were no significant differences between residents in the intervention group and in the control group in cognitive level, agitated behavior, or general functioning. Residents in the intervention showed a significantly higher score at 6 months in a quality of life subscale but there was no significant difference at 12 months. |
Note. ACE-R = Addenbrookes Cognitive Examination–Revisited; SES = Social Engagement Scale; SRQoL = Self-Reported Quality of Life Scale; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale; CEP = cognitive enhancement program; SS-A = Social Support Appraisal; SS-B = Social Support Behaviors.