• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia? A Critical Narrative Review

PM. Keune, R. Meister, J. Keune, R. Springer, P. Oschmann, S. Hansen, I. Holmerová, S. Auer

. 2025 ; 48 (3) : 386-400. [pub] 20241119

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc25015995

OBJECTIVES: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD. METHODS: Scientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments. RESULTS: N = 426 studies from PubMed and N = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Results of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc25015995
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20250731091426.0
007      
ta
008      
250708s2025 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)39562536
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Keune, Philipp M $u Department of Neurology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, Medical Campus Upper Franconia, Bayreuth, Germany $u Department of Cognition, Emotion and Neuropsychology, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany $u Center of Expertise in Longevity and Long-Term Care, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic
245    10
$a What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia? A Critical Narrative Review / $c PM. Keune, R. Meister, J. Keune, R. Springer, P. Oschmann, S. Hansen, I. Holmerová, S. Auer
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVES: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD. METHODS: Scientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments. RESULTS: N = 426 studies from PubMed and N = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Results of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a všímavost $x metody $7 D064866
650    12
$a demence $x psychologie $x terapie $7 D003704
650    12
$a zpráva o sobě $x normy $7 D057566
650    _2
$a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
650    _2
$a psychometrie $x metody $7 D011594
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Meister, Regina $u Department of Neurology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, Medical Campus Upper Franconia, Bayreuth, Germany $u Department of Clinical Neuropsychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
700    1_
$a Keune, Jana $u Department of Neurology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, Medical Campus Upper Franconia, Bayreuth, Germany
700    1_
$a Springer, Romy $u Department of Neurology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, Medical Campus Upper Franconia, Bayreuth, Germany $u Department of Cognition, Emotion and Neuropsychology, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
700    1_
$a Oschmann, Patrick $u Department of Neurology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, Medical Campus Upper Franconia, Bayreuth, Germany
700    1_
$a Hansen, Sascha $u Department of Neurology, Klinikum Bayreuth GmbH, Medical Campus Upper Franconia, Bayreuth, Germany $u Department of Cognition, Emotion and Neuropsychology, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany
700    1_
$a Holmerová, Iva $u Center of Expertise in Longevity and Long-Term Care, Faculty of Humanities, Charles University, Praha, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Auer, Stefanie $u Department of Dementia Research and Care Science, University for Continuing Education, Krems, Austria
773    0_
$w MED00209418 $t Clinical gerontologist $x 1545-2301 $g Roč. 48, č. 3 (2025), s. 386-400
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39562536 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20250708 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20250731091421 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2366685 $s 1253120
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2025 $b 48 $c 3 $d 386-400 $e 20241119 $i 1545-2301 $m Clinical gerontologist $n Clin Gerontol $x MED00209418
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20250708

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace