Table 1.
Level of personalisation of tailored activities
| No. | Author | Level of assessment for tailoring | Degree of individualisation in design | Degree of person-centred care in intervention delivery | Level of personalisation |
| 1 | Orsulic-Jeras et al38 | Structured assessments of participants’ preferences using the Montessori-Based Assessment System developed by the authors for selecting appropriate activities for participants | Preserved abilities and preference (Two and above) | No description | Medium |
| 2 | Cohen-Mansfield et al39 | Structured assessments for tailoring relating to participants’ medical history, self-identity and social functioning | Identity roles, the severity of dementia and ability (Two and above) | High flexibility. The choice of intervention was affected by availability of materials, family members’ cooperation and the practicability of the intervention | High |
| 3 | Garland et al31 | No preassessments for tailoring | Music preference (One) | No description | Low |
| 4 | Cohen-Mansfield et al40 | Structured assessments for tailoring regarding participants’ medical history, self-identity and social functioning | Ability, history and preference (Two and above) | High flexibility. The study clearly indicated that flexibility was essential element of intervention | High |
| 5 | Gitlin et al16 | Semi-structured interviews to discern daily routines, and the Pleasant Event Schedule to identify previous/current activity interests. Interventionists observed dyadic communication and home environmental features and assessed dementia patients | Capabilities, previous roles, habits, interests, home environment and dyadic communication (Two and above) | High flexibility. Activity prescriptions were reviewed and modified if necessary, during the implementation | High |
| 6 | Lam et al26 | Structured assessments for tailoring. Individual functional profiles were mapped with personal selection | Abilities, preference and needs (Two and above) | High flexibility. Training content was dynamic and adjusted to the changing needs of PWD | High |
| 7 | Dechamps et al58 | Semi-structured assessments on physical/psychological functions | Abilities (One) | Some flexibility | Medium |
| 8 | Gitlin et al51 | Structured assessments of PWD capabilities, medical testing, home environment, caregiver communication and caregiver-identified concerns. Interventionists interviewed caregivers to identify patient’s routines, previous/current roles, habits and interest | Home environment, caregiver-identified concerns and capabilities, routines, previous/current roles, habits and interests (Two and above) | High flexibility | High |
| 9 | Sung et al32 | Semi-structured assessments of participants’ preferences and information on the importance of music to life | Music preference (One) | Low | Low |
| 10 | Kolanowski et al41 | Structured assessments of capacities and personality of interest | Capacity and preference (Two and above) | High flexibility. Great flexibility was allowed to use staff’s own clinical judgement and knowledge to implement individualised activities | Medium |
| a | Capacity (One) | No description | Low | ||
| b | Preference (One) | No description | Low | ||
| 11 | Lin et al33 | Semi-structured preassessment of participants’ music preference | Music preference (One) | No description | Low |
| 12 | Cohen-Mansfield et al59 | Structured assessments of participants’ medical history, self-identity and social functioning | Past identity, ability and preferences (Two and above) | Some flexibility. Interventionists were allowed to seek approval for possible adjustment if needed | Medium |
| 13 | van der Ploeg et al42 | Structured assessments (Myers Menorah Park/Montessori-Based Assessment System) for tailoring | Preserved abilities and interest (Two and above) | High flexibility. Flexibility to respond to patients’ perceived level of interest was allowed | Medium |
| 14 | Ridder et al34 | Semi-structured interviews to elicit life-story information either from journal or relatives | Life-story/history, psychosocial needs (Two and above) | Low/some flexibility. No specific description | Medium |
| 15 | Sakamoto et al35 | Structural assessments for tailoring to analyse participants’ personal life history, and interview with each participant and family member | Music preference, special memories (Two and above) | High flexibility | High |
| 16 | Van Haitsma et al57 | Incomprehensive preassessments | Interest and ability (Two and above) | Some flexibility. The intervention was adjusted according to the time when residents need stimulation | Medium |
| 17 | Yoon et al43 | Incomprehensive preassessments | Ability (One) | Low flexibility | Low |
| 18 | Toba et al44 | Preassessment of individuals’ abilities and disabilities to evaluate how to enhance abilities and compensate for disabilities | Abilities (One) | No description | Medium |
| 19 | Holthoff et al27 | Incomprehensive preassessments | Ability (One) | Low flexibility | Low |
| 20 | Telenius et al28 | Incomprehensive preassessments | Ability (One) | No description | Low |
| 21 | Davison et al29 | Preassessment. The researchers met with participants and their families to determine the preferred materials | Interest only (One) | Low flexibility | Low |
| 22 | Giuli et al30 | Incomprehensive preassessments on patients’ cognitive status | Cognition (One) | No description | Low |
| 23 | Lu et al45 | Preassessments on PWD functional ability, types and frequencies of meaningful activity, perceived barriers to engaging in activities | Functional ability, types and frequencies of meaningful activity (Two and above) | No description | Medium |
| 24 | Prick et al46 | Structured assessments for tailoring | Physical capacities, information about pleasant activities for the dyad (Two and above) | Medium to high | High |
| 25 | Bailey et al52 | No preassessments for tailoring | Interest and history (Two and above) | High flexibility. The group leaders had the flexibility to develop and tailor the individualised behavioural activity programmes during implementation | Medium |
| 26 | Li et al47 | The preliminary survey was implemented to investigate participants’ preferences, cultural background, cognitive function and abilities | Interest and capacities (Two and above) | Some flexibility. The interventionist was allowed to choose activities to match PWD ability and interest during personalised activity | Medium |
| 27 | Gitlin et al53 | Structured assessments of participants’ capacities, fall risk, daily routines, interests, caregivers (routines, employment, readiness) and environments (lighting, seating, clutter, noise) | Capabilities, functioning, interest, environment, caregivers (Two and above) | High flexibility (prescriptions were reviewed and modified if necessary during implementation) | High |
| 28 | Tanaka et al48 | Incomprehensive preassessments | Personal history (One) | No description | Low |
| 29 | Novelli et al54 | Structured assessments to identify preserved capacities, previous interests, frequency/intensity of BPSD in the PWD, daily care routines of caregivers and home environment features | Capabilities, previous interests, frequency and intensity of BPSD in PWD, daily care routines of the caregiver and home environment (Two and above) | High flexibility. Interventionists are allowed to tailor and adjust the chosen activities to match participants’ capabilities during implementation | High |
| 30 | Kwak et al36 | Unstructured interviews with participants and their family members as the best sources for identifying an individual’s music preferences | Music preference and songs significant to PWD life experience (Two and above) | High flexibility. The intervention allowed flexibility for facility staff to use their own clinical judgement and knowledge to tailor and implement the intervention | Medium |
| 31 | Jeon et al49 | Comprehensive individual assessment (physical, medical and psychosocial) and their environment, medication review and adherence, a review of communication with health service providers and cognitive needs and existing strategies. | Capacities/needs, environment (Two and above) | High flexibility. A multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary plan tailored to meet the client’s needs to enhance self-care ability using person-centred goal setting | High |
| 32 | de Oliveira et al 55 | Structured assessments. Semi structured investigator-developed interview to identify daily routines, and the Pleasant Event Schedule to identify previous and current activity interests | Cognitive and functional capacities, previous abilities, interests and roles (Two and above) | High flexibility (prescriptions were reviewed and modified if necessary during the implementation） | High |
| 33 | O’Connor et al56 | Structured assessments of participants’ capacities, fall risk, daily routines, interests, caregivers (routines, employment, readiness) and environments (lighting, seating, clutter, noise) | Capabilities, functioning, interest, environment, caregivers (Two and above) | High flexibility (prescriptions were reviewed and modified if necessary during implementation） | High |
| 34 | Weise et al37 | Preassessment of participants’ personal music preference from family members, nursing staff and directly from participants | Preference for music (One) | Low flexibility | Low |
| 35 | Huber et al50 | Incomprehensive preassessments | Preference (One) | Low flexibility | Low |
One=the intervention design was tailored for only one aspect of PWD characteristics; Two and above=the intervention design was tailored for two and above aspects of PWD characteristics.
PWD, people with dementia.