Assessment of innovative living and care arrangements for persons with dementia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Alternative forms of housing for persons with dementia have been developed in recent decades. These concepts offer small groups of residents familiar settings combined with efforts to provide normal daily life. The aim of this systematic review is to collate and analyze these more innovative forms of housing regarding residents’ quality of life, behavioral aspects, as well as functional, cognitive and emotional aspects. METHODS: Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and PsycInfo in November 2020. Studies comparing traditional and more innovative living environments for persons with dementia were eligible. Concepts are described based on the results of additional searches. Risk of bias of included studies was assessed using checklists from the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies corresponding to 11 different concepts were included, namely Green Houses (USA), Group Living (Sweden), Cantou (France), Group Homes (Japan), Small-scale Group Living (Austria), Special Care Facilities (Canada), Shared-housing Arrangements (Germany), Residential Groups (Germany), Residential Care Centers / Woodside Places (USA/Canada), Small-scale Living (Netherlands/ Belgium), and Green Care Farms (Netherlands). The concepts are broadly similar in terms of care concepts, but partly differ in group sizes, staff qualifications and responsibilities. Several studies indicate that innovative forms of housing may encourage social behavior, preserve activity performance and/or positively influence emotional status compared to more traditional settings, while other studies fail to demonstrate these effects. Some studies also show increased behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in residents who live in more innovative housing concepts. The effect on cognition remains indistinct. DISCUSSION: The positive effects may be attributable to the inherent characteristics, including small group sizes, a stimulating design, and altered staff roles and responsibilities. Arguably, some of these characteristics might also be the reason for increased BPSD. Studies had variable methodological quality and results have to be considered with caution. Future research should examine these effects more closely and should investigate populations’ preferences with regards to housing in the event of dementia. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-023-04187-4.