Search

Background and Objectives Providing preferred leisure activities appears to be an important approach to support and empower people receiving adult day services (ADS) allowing them to age in place. To provide the conceptualization for a preference instrument, we actively involved people receiving ADS in exploring the content and structure of their preferences for leisure activities. Research Design and Methods We chose a concept mapping methodology and involved 16 people receiving ADS. We systematically reviewed the literature and conducted semistructured interviews to generate a set of 80 preferences. Analysis of structuring these preferences resulted in a 3-dimensional cube with 12 clusters. A graphical representation was then interpreted , and the clusters were labeled. Results Our conceptualization divides preferences for leisure activities into the following: 1. Take a trip , 2. Revel in memories and catch up on the news (most important), 3. Do something for yourself and come to rest , 4. Play intelligence and parlor games , 5. Make/produce and try something alone or in a group , 6. Keep fit and cheer others on in sports (least important), 7. Learn, educate, and share knowledge , 8. Have contact with other people , 9. Attend at entertainment, cultural, and amusement events , 10. Enjoy music, your homeland, or other countries , 11. Engage in outdoor activities , and 12. Get involved, offer support, and provide companionship. Discussion and Implications Our results may lead to the development of instruments and thus opens the field for further research and theory building on preferences for leisure activities of people receiving ADS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently it is unknown what people receiving adult day services (ADS) understand as leisure and the activities they prefer remain unknown. To address these gaps, we investigated the understanding of leisure of people receiving ADS. We conducted semistructured interviews with 15 people receiving ADS in Germany. Interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The sweet bitter symphony emphasizes the sensations that shape participant's understanding of leisure. Young, wild & free ! describes the types of preferred activities. Is this our last tango? refers to the barriers. Anchors aweigh! the [ongoing] voyage describes the process by which leisure is transferred from private domain to the ADS environment. The beginning is the end is the beginning illustrates the paradox of understanding the ADS as offering a form of leisure and the adaptation to engage in nonpreference-based activities. Our findings indicate the importance in offering leisure activities that enable preference-based engagement in the ADS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To provide an overview of the available evidence on the implementation of direct and capacity-building interventions to promote and maintain the functional mobility of nursing home residents. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews as described by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched for studies in MEDLINE (via PubMed) and CINAHL (via EBSCO). We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the included studies with deductive categories based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Ultimately, we included 8 studies on direct interventions, 6 studies on capacity-building interventions, and 2 studies on both types of interventions in our review. Seven studies provided evidence on implementation strategies comprising discrete as well as multifaceted, multilevel strategies. Most of the studies did not systematically evaluate the strategies but remained at a descriptive level. All 16 studies provided evidence of influencing factors. We identified 32 of the 37 influencing factors of the CFIR. The five most frequent influencing factors were available resources (n = 14), access to knowledge and information (n = 12), patient needs and resources (n = 10), knowledge and beliefs about the intervention (n = 10) and compatibility (n = 9). Conclusions: The available evidence on the implementation of functional mobility interventions in nursing homes is rather limited. This emphasizes the need for further research. Regarding implementation strategies, the systematic evaluation and further development of the reported promising approaches might be a starting point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Caring for people with dementia is complex, and there are various evidence-based interventions. However, a gap exists between the available interventions and how to implement them. The objectives of our review are to identify implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, and influencing factors for the implementation of evidence-based interventions that focus on three preselected phenomena in people with dementia: (A) behavior that challenges supporting a person with dementia in long-term care, (B) delirium in acute care, and (C) postacute care needs. Methods: We conducted a scoping review according to the description of the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. For the data analysis, we conducted deductive content analysis. For this analysis, we used the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC), implementation outcomes according to Proctor and colleagues, and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: We identified 362 (A), 544 (B), and 714 records (C) on the three phenomena and included 7 (A), 3 (B), and 3 (C) studies. Among the studies, nine reported on the implementation strategies they used. Clusters with the most reported strategies were adapt and tailor to context and train and educate stakeholders. We identified one study that tested the effectiveness of the applied implementation strategy, while ten studies reported implementation outcomes (mostly fidelity). Regarding factors that influence implementation, all identified studies reported between 1 and 19 factors. The most reported factors were available resources and the adaptability of the intervention. To address dementia-specific influencing factors, we enhanced the CFIR construct of patient needs and resources to include family needs and resources. Conclusions: We found a high degree of homogeneity across the different dementia phenomena, the evidence-based interventions, and the care settings in terms of the implementation strategies used, implementation outcomes measured, and influencing factors identified. However, it remains unclear to what extent implementation strategies themselves are evidence-based and which intervention strategy can be used by practitioners when either the implementation outcomes are not adjusted to the implementation strategy and/or the effects of implementation strategies are mostly unknown. Future research needs to focus on investigating the effectiveness of implementation strategies for evidence-based interventions for dementia care. Trial registration: The review protocol was prospectively published (Manietta et al., BMJ Open 11:e051611, 2021). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate relevant studies to contribute to evidence-based practice. Internationally, researchers have reached a consensus that the active involvement of the public leads to better research. Despite this agreement, there are many reviews of research concerning healthcare interventions intended to promote the care of people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., close contacts, both family and non-family members) primarily involve only healthcare professionals and other experts. Due to the lack of a dementia-sensitive framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals as co-researchers in systematic reviews, it is important to develop a framework to inform practice. Methods: For this framework development process, we will recruit four people living with dementia and a total of four people from their social network, and three healthcare professionals working in acute or long-term care settings. We will conduct regular meetings with these groups of the public and healthcare professionals to include them in all stages of the systematic review. We will also identify and develop methods necessary to ensure meaningful involvement. The results will be documented and analyzed for the development of a framework. For the planning and preparation for these meetings, as well as the conduct of the meetings themselves, we will be guided by the principles of the INVOLVE approach. In addition, the ACTIVE framework will be used to guide the degree of involvement and the stage in the review process. Discussion: We assume that our transparent approach to the development of a framework to support the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews will serve as an impetus for and provide guidance to other researchers with the goal of increasing researchers' focus on this topic and facilitating systematic reviews that apply participatory approaches. Trial registration: Trial registration is unnecessary as no intervention study will be conducted. Plain English summary: Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate studies on a particular topic. They provide information, for example, regarding whether an intervention is beneficial. This type of review is particularly important for healthcare professionals because they can use the results of the review to guide their actions. There is a growing awareness that the public, including people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., relatives, friends), need to be actively involved in the process of preparing these reviews when they are concerned with the topic of the reviews. Despite this consensus, it is often the case that only healthcare professionals are involved in such reviews. At present, no framework for the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews has been developed. Therefore, we will develop such a framework together in collaboration with a range of members of the public and healthcare professionals. For this purpose, in addition to healthcare professionals, we will involve people living with dementia and those from their social network. Over the course of several meetings, we will engage in discussion with them and identify the stages of the process of conducting a systematic review in which their involvement as members of the researcher team is meaningful. We will furthermore identify the requirements associated with such an active involvement. A written report of these discussions will be produced in collaboration with the group. This will contribute towards the development of a framework for other researchers. The framework will later be made available to the public free of charge to increase awareness of this topic and to contribute towards more frequent, well-organised and meaningful involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care counseling is an important psychosocial intervention for people with care needs and their relatives and can contribute to maintaining and/or improving a patient's quality of life and reducing the burden of caregivers. This is especially the case for people with dementia and their relatives, in which the methods of care counseling need to be different than those for individuals with non-dementia related care needs. Furthermore, the counseling content needs to be adjusted to the specific form and stage of dementia. In Germany, every person who receives support per the German Social Law Book XI (SBG XI) can take advantage of care counseling according to §7a SGB XI. To date, there is no systematic overview of counseling services for people with dementia and their relatives related to this specific provision in Germany. Methods: We conducted a gray-shaded scoping review with a focus on the evaluation of care counseling according to §7a SGB XI for people with dementia and their relatives. For this purpose, we applied five search strategies. We researched (1) national electronic databases, (2) Google, (3) targeted websites, (4) experts, and (5) academic electronic databases. Additionally, for the included gray literature, we conducted backward citation tracking via reference lists and forward citation tracking via Google Scholar for scientific articles. Screening of the identified potentially relevant records was performed independently by two reviewers. Results: We identified 985 records and included 6 studies in our review. We divided the identified studies into three themes: understanding conceptual dimensions, digitalization of counseling, and understanding the perspective of those being counseled. No studies investigated the perspective and experience of people with dementia and their relatives regarding the counseling service according to §7a SGB XI. Conclusions: Our results show that further research is needed, especially regarding the experience of people with dementia and their relatives who participated in counseling according to §7a SGB XI. It seems essential to understand the perspective of people with dementia and their relatives to improve and tailor counseling services in Germany. Registration: The review protocol was prospectively published (BMJ Open 12:e059771, 2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of HeilberufeSCIENCE is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)