Search

Background: Getting a diagnosis of dementia does not equate to equitable access to care. People with dementia and unpaid carers face many barriers to care, which can vary within, and across, different countries and cultures. With little evidence across different countries, the aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the different and similar types of inequalities in dementia across Europe, and provide recommendations for addressing these. Methods: We conducted a brief online survey with INTERDEM and INTERDEM Academy members across Europe, and with members of Alzheimer Europe's European Working Group of People with Dementia and Carers in February and March 2023. Members were asked about whether inequalities in dementia care existed within their country; if yes, to highlight three key inequalities. Responses on barriers were coded into groups, and frequencies of inequalities were calculated. Highlighted inequalities were discussed and prioritised at face‐to‐face and virtual consensus meetings in England, Ireland, Italy, and Poland, involving people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers, and non‐profit organisations. Results: Forty‐nine academics, PhD students, people with dementia and unpaid carers from 10 countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Malta, Netherlands, UK) completed the survey. The most frequently identified inequalities focused on unawareness and lack of information, higher level system issues (i.e. lack of communication among care professionals), lack of service suitability, and stigma. Other barriers included workforce training and knowledge, financial costs, culture and language, lack of single‐point‐of‐contact person, age, and living location/postcode lottery. There was general consensus among people living dementia and care providers of unawareness as a key barrier in different European countries, with varied priorities in Ireland depending on geographical location. Conclusions: These findings provide a first insight on dementia inequalities across Europe, generate cross‐country learnings on how to address these inequalities in dementia, and can underpin further solution‐focused research that informs policy and key decision makers to implement changes. Key points: There are numerous similar barriers to accessing dementia care across different European countries.Some of the key challenges to equitable dementia care are lack of workforce knowledge, lack of information, stigma, financial barriers, and lack of communication among care professionals.Cultural challenges, postcode lottery, and service suitability were also raised as key barriers to dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic has significantly limited access to health and social care support systems for people with dementia and their carers, compounding the severe social restrictions. The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of COVID‐19 among community‐dwelling people with dementia and their informal carers in Italy. Specifically, we focused on access to community‐based services and adopted solutions to provide support and care during exceptional times. Informal carers, caring for someone with dementia and attending community‐based services in Italy, participated in remote semi‐structured interviews between October and November 2020. Participants were asked about the effects of social isolation and closure of in‐person services on their daily lives as well as the challenges of dementia care. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. 22 informal carers were interviewed. Three themes emerged: (1) Disruptions to people with dementia's lives and health; (2) COVID‐19 as an additional stressor for carers; and (3) New ways of caring for people with dementia during COVID‐19. Face‐to‐face social care and social support services were suddenly interrupted and restrictions on social distancing were introduced, thus leading to people with dementia's impaired health and increased behavioural and psychological symptoms. Not only the amount but also the intensity of care increased, with no chance of respite for informal carers. Overall remote activities provided participants with emotional and social benefits, while allowing the continuity of relationships with services staff and users and of care. However, according to carers, a combination of virtual and face‐to‐face activities could better counterbalance the multiple adverse outcomes of COVID‐19. Public health measures should be designed carefully to consider the safety needs and the physical, psychological and social needs of people with dementia. Within a holistic care approach, social care services need to be enabled better to guarantee high‐quality care even during pandemic times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the costs and cost‐effectiveness of the Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP) implemented and piloted in the UK, Poland and Italy, replicating the Dutch Meeting Centre model. Dutch Meeting Centres combine day services for people with dementia with carer support. Data were collected over 2015–2016 from MCSP and usual care (UC) participants (people with dementia‐carer dyads) at baseline and 6 months. We examined participants' health and social care (HSC), and societal costs, including Meeting Centre (MC) attendances. Costs and outcomes in MCSP and UC groups were compared. Primary outcomes: Persons with dementia: quality‐adjusted life years (EQ‐5D‐5L‐derived); QOL‐AD. DQoL was examined as a secondary outcome. Carers: Short Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ). Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves were obtained by bootstrapping outcome and cost regression estimates. Eighty‐three MCSP and 69 UC dyads were analysed. The 6‐month cost of providing MCSP was €4,703; participants with dementia attended MC a mean of 45 times and carers 15 times. Including intervention costs, adjusted 6‐month HSC costs were €5,941higher in MCSP than in UC. From the HSC perspective: in terms of QALY, the probability of cost‐effectiveness was zero over willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) ranging from €0 to €350,000. On QOL‐AD, the probability of cost‐effectiveness of MCSP was 50% at WTP of €5,000 for a one‐point increase. A one‐point gain in the DQoL positive affect subscale had a probability of cost‐effectiveness of 99% at WTP over €8,000. On SSCQ, no significant difference was found between MCSP and UC. Evidence for cost‐effectiveness of MCSP was mixed but suggests that it may be cost‐effective in relation to gains in dementia‐specific quality of life measures. MCs offer effective tailored post‐diagnostic support services to both people with dementia and carers in a context where few evidence‐based alternatives to formal home‐based social services may be available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first study to focus on the role and impact of a psychosocial intervention, the Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP), for people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) on the experience of stigmatisation across three different European countries. A pre/post-test control group study design compared outcomes for 114 people with dementia (n=74) and MCI (n=40) in Italy, Poland and the UK who received either the MCSP or usual care (UC). The 'Stigma Impact Scale, neurological disease' (SIS) was administered at two points in time, 6 months apart. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) was used to assess the level of cognitive impairment. Although statistical analysis did not show any significant differences between MCSP and UC at pre/post-test for the 3 countries combined, there were significant results for individual countries. In Italy, the level of SIS was significantly lower (p=0.02) in the MCSP group following the intervention. The level of Social Isolation increased significantly (p=0.05) in the UC group at follow-up in Poland. The level of Social Rejection was significantly higher (p=0.03) over time for UK participants receiving MCSP compared to UC. The experience of stigma by people living with dementia and MCI is complex and there may be different country specific contexts and mechanisms. The results do not enable us to confirm or disconfirm the impact of a social support programme, such as MCSP, on this experience. Difficulties in directly measuring the level of stigma in this group also requires further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Meeting Centres Support Programme (MCSP) offers a combined approach to providing practical, emotional and social support to people living with mild to moderately severe dementia and their family carers in the community. A mixed methods explanatory design was used. The evaluation took place within the framework of the international Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) – MEETINGDEM study in nine Meeting Centres in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. Eighty-seven people with dementia and 81 family carers completed a user evaluation survey after three months and 83 people with dementia and 84 carers after 6 months of participation in MCSP. Thirty-two people with dementia and 30 carers took part in focus groups after nine months. The percentage of people with dementia who were very satisfied with the programme increased significantly over time (p = 0.05). The majority of carers reported that they felt less burdened after three months of participation in MCSP (48.1% much less; 35.4% a little less). After six months, this percentage increased significantly to 91% (p = 0.04, 57.7% much less; 33.3% little less). Focus group analysis showed that people with dementia and carers in all countries/centres improved their ability to maintain emotional balance. The MCSP is highly appreciated by people with dementia and carers in all countries and it confirms the results of previous research into MCSP in the Netherlands. Our findings indicate that MCSP is a model that can help its users to increase their capacity to deal with the challenges caused by dementia and can promote emotional balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates body-oriented psychotherapeutic intervention techniques that may affect psychological domains and body consciousness. The study examined the levels of psychological affects and body consciousness of participants and analyzed differences their public and private body consciousness and body competence. It explores the application of the neo-functional psychotherapy techniques called mobilise and perceive the pain.

Background: In the past decades, many new insights and best practices in palliative care, a relatively new field in health care, have been published. However, this knowledge is often not implemented. The aim of this study therefore was to identify strategies to implement improvement activities identified in a research project within daily palliative care practice. Methods: A nominal group technique was used with members of the IMPACT consortium, being international researchers and clinicians in cancer care, dementia care and palliative care. Participants identified and prioritized implementation strategies. Data was analyzed qualitatively using inductive coding. Results: Twenty international clinicians and researchers participated in one of two parallel nominal group sessions. The recommended strategies to implement results from a research project were grouped in five common themes: 1. Dissemination of results e.g. by publishing results tailored to relevant audiences, 2. Identification and dissemination of unique selling points, 3. education e.g. by developing e-learning tools and integrating scientific evidence into core curricula, 4. Stimulation of participation of stakeholders, and 5. consideration of consequences e.g. rewarding services for their implementation successes but not services that fail to implement quality improvement activities. Discussion: The added value of this nominal group study lies in the prioritisation by the experts of strategies to influence the implementation of quality improvement activities in palliative care. Efforts to ensure future use of scientific findings should be built into research projects in order to prevent waste of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]