Back

Barriers and facilitators to implementing DREAMS:START intervention for sleep disturbance in dementia within the NHS: A pre-implementation study

Mehta, V.; Rapaport, P.; Livingston, G.

2025-10-31 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.10.29.25339056 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSleep disturbances are common in people living with dementia and negatively affect them and their family carers. Non-pharmacological interventions like DREAMS:START (Dementia Related Manual for Sleep: Strategies for Relatives) offer potential benefits but are not yet implemented widely in NHS practice. AimsTo explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing DREAMS:START in UK NHS dementia services, from the perspective of healthcare professionals and intervention facilitators, using qualitative interviews. MethodWe interviewed 19 NHS staff - (n=10) staff with no prior DREAMS:START experience and (n=9) DREAMS:START facilitators using semi-structured interviews and analysed data using reflexive thematic analysis, organized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Ethical approval was granted by the London-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/LO/0894). ResultsFive key themes emerged: 1) perceived need for interventions targeting sleep in dementia; 2) importance of evidence and cost-effectiveness; 3) influence of service manager attitudes and support; 4) inter-professional interconnectedness and training; and 5) staff capacity and attitudes toward change. Participants highlighted the need for flexible, personalised delivery, robust evidence, training, supervision, and local champions to facilitate adoption. ConclusionsImplementation of DREAMS:START in NHS services is feasible but organisational barriers need addressing to enhance staff capacity, and promote evidence-based, cost-effective practices. Findings from this study will inform strategies for scaling up the intervention to improve sleep outcomes for people with dementia and their carers.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
32.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 19%
10.1%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.4%
50% of probability mass above
4
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
5
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
6
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
7
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
8
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.9%
9
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
10
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
12
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
13
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
15
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
16
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
18
BMC Geriatrics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
20
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
21
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
22
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
23
Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%