Search

Objectives:Nursing home residents with dementia are sensitive to detrimental auditory environments. This paper presents the first literature review of empirical research investigating (1) the (perceived) intensity and sources of sounds in nursing homes, and (2) the influence of sounds on health of residents with dementia and staff.Design:A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. Study quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We used a narrative approach to present the results.Results:We included 35 studies. Nine studies investigated sound intensity and reported high noise intensity with an average of 55–68 dB(A) (during daytime). In four studies about sound sources, human voices and electronic devices were the most dominant sources. Five cross-sectional studies focused on music interventions and reported positives effects on agitated behaviors. Four randomized controlled trials tested noise reduction as part of an intervention. In two studies, high-intensity sounds were associated with decreased nighttime sleep and increased agitation. The third study found an association between music and less agitation compared to other stimuli. The fourth study did not find an effect of noise on agitation. Two studies reported that a noisy environment had negative effects on staff.Conclusions:The need for appropriate auditory environments that are responsive to residents’ cognitive abilities and functioning is not yet recognized widely. Future research needs to place greater emphasis on intervention-based and longitudinal study design.

Objectives We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of caregiver training on the well-being of both people with dementia and their caregivers. Before the effect analysis, we conducted a process evaluation to estimate internal and external validity. This was anticipated to augment our understanding of the outcomes. Methods We focused on three questions. (a) Was the intervention performed as planned (internal validity)? (b) Can qualitative data be used to inform how the intervention evoked change? (c) Can the study outcomes be extrapolated to all caregivers living with people who have dementia (external validity)? Results Responses from participants assigned to the intervention group suggested that the intervention was feasible, could be performed as planned, and that modelling and discussions between participants were important. However, participant recruitment to the entire study was ultimately laborious because participants had issues with the study design (risk of being assigned to the control group) and referrers lacked familiarity with the training (new type of intervention). Participants were also younger and better educated compared with the general population. Some dropouts in the follow-up period occurred due to the number of questionnaires, and this was more pronounced in the control group. Conclusions Although we achieved high internal validity, we lack certainty about the external validity. We not only experienced general difficulty in recruiting participants but also tended to recruit a biased sample that was relatively young and well educated. These factors combine to limit our ability to extrapolate the results to the general population.

Objectives Caregivers for people with dementia (PWD) have reported needing emotional and social support, improved coping strategies, and better information about the illness and available support services. In this study, we aimed to determine the effectiveness of an Australian multicomponent community-based training program that we adapted and implemented in a non-medical Dutch health care setting. Methods and design A randomized controlled trial was performed: 142 dyads of cohabiting caregivers and PwD were randomized to control (care as usual) or intervention (training program) groups and outcomes were compared. Programs lasted 1 week, comprised 14 sessions, and were delivered by specialist staff. We included 16 groups of two to six caregivers. The primary outcome was care-related quality of life (CarerQol-7D) at 3 months. The main secondary outcomes for caregivers were self-rated burden, health and mood symptoms, and for PwD were neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and agitation. Results No significant difference was observed for the primary outcome. However, caregivers experienced fewer role limitations due to physical function (adjusted mean difference, 13.04; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 3.15-22.93), emotional function (13.52; 95%CI, 3.76-23.28), and pain reduction (9.43; 95%CI, 1.00-17.86). Positive outcomes identified by qualitative analysis included better acceptance and coping and improved knowledge of dementia and available community services and facilities. Conclusion Quantitative analysis showed that the multicomponent course did not affect care-related quality of life but did have a positive effect on experienced role limitations and pain. Qualitative analysis showed that the course met the needs of participating dyads.

We translated and modified an ambiance scale for use by (in)formal caregivers in Dutch nursing homes. We tested validity and reliability of the modified Ambiance Scale.Convenience sampling was used to enrol (in)formal caregivers in three nursing homes in the Netherlands. 104 questionnaires were filled in; 45 by informal caregivers, 46 by formal caregivers. Ten caregivers filled in the questionnaire twice for test-retest purposes. Three original items were used, and seven newly were added to form the modified Ambiance Scale. Each item consisted of an adjective pair assessing an aspect of ambiance on a scale of 1 (homelike) to 5 (institutional). Caregivers filled in the questionnaire on two different days to assess intra rater reliability. Differences in scoring between formal and informal caregivers and between original and new items were analyzed.The questionnaire was easy to comprehend and fill in. Internal consistency was good (This study demonstrated that the modified Ambiance Scale had good internal consistency, moderate replicability and both informal and formal caregivers' overall ratings were comparable. The modified Ambiance Scale is a valid, reliable and easy to use tool to assess ambiance in nursing home settings.

Background: The more (inappropriate) drugs a patient uses, the higher the risk of drug related problems. To reduce these risks, medication reviews can be performed. Objective: To report changes in the prescribed number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs before and after performing a medication review in high-risk polypharmacy patients. A secondary objective was to study reasons for continuing potentially inappropriate drugs (PIDs). Setting Dutch community pharmacy and general medical practice. Methods: A retrospective longitudinal intervention study with a pre-test/post-test design and follow-up of 1 week and 3 months was performed. The study population consisted of 126 patients with polypharmacy and with additional risk for drug related problems that underwent a medication review in five community pharmacies. The medication review was performed by the pharmacist in close cooperation with the general practitioner of each corresponding patient. Main outcome measure: Number of (potentially inappropriate) drugs, and appropriateness of prescribed medicines. Results: The average number of drugs a patient used 1 day before the review was 8.7 (SD = 2.9), which decreased (p

Background: A typical antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia have been tested in much larger trials than the older conventional drugs. The advantage of larger sample sizes is that negative findings become less likely and the effect estimates more precise. However, as sample sizes increase, the trials also get more expensive and time consuming while exposing more patients to drugs with unknown safety profiles. Moreover, a large sample size might yield a statistically significant effect that is not necessarily clinically relevant.Objective: To assess (1) the variation in sample size and sample size calculations of antipsychotic trials in dementia, (2) the size of reported treatment effects and related statistical significance, and (3) general study characteristics that might be related to sample size.Study Design and Setting: We performed a meta-epidemiological study of randomized trials that tested antipsychotics for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia. The trials compared conventional or atypical antipsychotics with placebo or another antipsychotic. Two reviewers independently extracted sample size, sample size calculations, reported treatment effects with p-values, and general study characteristics (drug type, trial duration, type of funding). We calculated a reference sample size of 83 and 433 per study group for the placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials respectively.Results: We identified 33 placebo-controlled trials, and 18 head-to-head trials. Only 14 (42%) and 2 (11%), respectively, reported a sample size calculation. The average sample size per arm was 34 (range 6-179) in placebo-controlled trials testing conventional drugs, 107 (8-237) in such trials testing atypical drugs, and 104 (95-115) in such trials testing both drug types; it was 31 (10-88) in head-to-head trials. Thirteen out of 18 trials with sample sizes larger than required (72%) reported a statistically significant treatment effect, of which two (15%) were clinically relevant. None of the head-to-head trials reported a statistically significant treatment effect, even though some suggested non-inferiority. In placebo-controlled trials of atypical drugs, longer trial duration (>6 weeks) and commercial funding were associated with higher sample size.Conclusion: Sample size calculations were poorly reported in antipsychotic trials for dementia. Placebo-controlled trials of atypical antipsychotics showed large sample size fallacy while head-to-head trials were massively underpowered.