ObjectiveTo determine the effect of occupational therapy provided at home on activities of daily living, behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and quality of life (QOL) for people with dementia, and the effect on family carer burden, depression and QOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsEight databases were searched to February 2018. Randomised controlled trials of occupational therapy delivered at home for people with dementia and their family carers that measured ADL, and/or BPSD were included. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data.ResultsFifteen trials were included (n=2063). Occupational therapy comprised multiple components (median=8 sessions). Compared with usual care or attention control occupational therapy resulted in improvements in the following outcomes for people with dementia: overall ADL after intervention (standardised means difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.05); instrumental ADL alone (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.37; moderate quality); number of behavioural and psychological symptoms (SMD −0.32, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.08; moderate quality); and QOL (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.24) after the intervention and at follow-up (SMD 1.07, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.55). Carers reported less hours assisting the person with dementia (SMD −0.33, 95% CI −0.58 to −0.07); had less distress with behaviours (SMD −0.23, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.05; moderate quality) and improved QOL (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.33; moderate quality). Two studies compared occupational therapy with a comparison intervention and found no statistically significant results. GRADE ratings indicated evidence was very low to moderate quality.ConclusionsFindings suggest that occupational therapy provided at home may improve a range of important outcomes for people with dementia and their family carers. Health professionals could consider referring them for occupational therapy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42011001166.

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of silicone and pressure garments (alone and in combination) in children receiving scar management post-burn. Design: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Hospital outpatient clinics, colocated research centre, or the participant’s home. Participants: Children (0–18 years) referred for burn scar management. Interventions: Participants were randomized to (1) topical silicone gel only, (2) pressure garment therapy only, or (3) combined topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. Main measures: Primary outcomes included scar thickness and itch intensity at the primary end-point of six months post-burn injury. The outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded for scar thickness. Results: Participants ( N = 153; silicone n = 51, pressure n = 49, combined n = 53) had a median (inter-quartile range) age of 4.9 (1.6, 10.2) years and percent total body surface area burn of 1% (0.5%, 3%) and were 65% male. At six months post-burn injury, intention-to-treat analysis identified thinner scars in the silicone ( n = 51 scar sites) compared to the combined group ( n = 48 scar sites; mean difference (95% confidence interval) = –0.04 cm (–0.07, –0.00), P = 0.05). No other between-group differences were identified for scar thickness or itch intensity at six months post-burn. Conclusion: No difference was identified in the effectiveness of silicone and pressure interventions alone. No benefit to a combined silicone and pressure intervention was identified for the prevention and management of abnormal scarring in children at six months post-burn injury, compared to the silicone or pressure interventions alone.

BackgroundAbnormal scar development following burn injury can cause substantial physical and psychological distress to children and their families. Common burn scar prevention and management techniques include silicone therapy, pressure garment therapy, or a combination of both.Currently, no definitive, high-quality evidence is available for the effectiveness of topical silicone gel or pressure garment therapy for the prevention and management of burn scars in the paediatric population. Thus, this study aims to determine the effectiveness of these treatments in children.MethodsA randomised controlled trial will be conducted at a large tertiary metropolitan children’s hospital in Australia. Participants will be randomised to one of three groups: Strataderm® topical silicone gel only, pressure garment therapy only, or combined Strataderm® topical silicone gel and pressure garment therapy. Participants will include 135 children (45 per group) up to 16 years of age who are referred for scar management for a new burn. Children up to 18 years of age will also be recruited following surgery for burn scar reconstruction. Primary outcomes are scar itch intensity and scar thickness. Secondary outcomes include scar characteristics (e.g. colour, pigmentation, pliability, pain), the patient’s, caregiver’s and therapist’s overall opinion of the scar, health service costs, adherence, health-related quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adverse effects. Measures will be completed on up to two sites per person at baseline and 1 week post scar management commencement, 3 months and 6 months post burn, or post burn scar reconstruction. Data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate regression analyses.DiscussionResults of this study will determine the effectiveness of three noninvasive scar interventions in children at risk of, and with, scarring post burn or post reconstruction.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001100482. Registered on 5 August 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1820-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.