Hopp til innhold

Get alerts of updates about «The physical environment for people with dementia»

How often would you like to receive alerts from fhi.no? (This affects all your alerts)
Do you also want alerts about:

The email address you register will only be used to send you these alerts. You can cancel your alerts and delete your email address at any time by following the link in the alerts you receive.
Read more about the privacy policy for fhi.no

You have subscribed to alerts about:

  • The physical environment for people with dementia

Systematic review

The physical environment for people with dementia

Published Updated

Update of a report from 2009 to review the available evidence on the physical environment for people with dementia.

Update of a report from 2009 to review the available evidence on the physical environment for people with dementia.


About this publication

  • Year: 2014
  • By: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
  • Authors Dalsbø TK, Kirkehei I, Dahm KT.
  • ISBN (digital): 978-82-8121-930-4

Key message

The Ministry of Health commissioned the National Knowledge Center for The Health Care Services to review the available evidence on the physical environment for people with dementia.  This work was published in 2009, report number 11 (1).

The Norwegian Directorate of Health asked us to update the report. We have performed a literature search to find potential new and relevant systematic reviews. We updated the previous systematic literature search and searched several relevant medical databases. The search was performed in November 2014. Thereafter, two persons independently read through all the titles and abstracts to find potential new reviews that met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. We read 476 references from the literature search and included six potentially relevant reviews. Five out of six articles were published in 2014, one was from 2013. Themes were:

  • Outdoor and gardening (2, 3)
  • Assistive technology (4)
  • Fall prevention and supportive environment (5-7).

The reviews was not read in full text nor was the documentation critically appraised.