Search

Background: The workload associated with caring for a person with dementia (PwD) could negatively affect informal caregivers' physical and mental health. According to the recent literature, there is a need for studies testing the implementation of affordable and accessible interventions for improving caregivers' well-being. Aims: This study aimed to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of an 8 week eHealth psychoeducation intervention held during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy in reducing the psychological burden and neuroendocrine markers of stress in caregivers of PwD. Methods: Forty-one informal caregivers of PwD completed the eHealth psychoeducation intervention. Self-reported (i.e., caregiver burden, anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and caregiver self-efficacy) and cortisol measurements were collected before and after the intervention. Results: Following the intervention, the caregivers' self-efficacy regarding the ability to respond to disruptive behaviours improved (t = − 2.817, p = 0.007), anxiety and burden levels decreased (state anxiety: t = 3.170, p = 0.003; trait anxiety: t = 2.327, p = 0.025; caregiver burden: t = 2.290, p = 0.027), while depressive symptoms and cortisol levels did not change significantly. Correlation analyses showed that the increase in self-efficacy was positively associated with the improvement of caregiver burden from pre- to post-intervention (r = 0.386, p = 0.014). The intervention had a low rate of dropout (n = 1, due to the patient's death) and high levels of appreciation. Discussion: The positive evidence and participation rate support the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed eHealth psychoeducational intervention to meet the need for knowledge of disease management and possibly reduce detrimental effects on caregivers' psychological well-being. Conclusion: Further placebo-controlled trials are needed to test the generalizability and specificity of our results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic and public health measures caused serious consequences for several population cohorts, including people with dementia in care homes and their families. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of COVID-19 on care home residents with dementia as experienced by family carers in Italy. Specifically, strategies implemented to overcome the pandemic's constraints, their influence upon care, and consequences for everyday life of residents with dementia and carers were investigated. Semi-structured interviews explored participants' experiences of the pandemic, its restrictions and the services' status during lockdown. Transcripts were analysed via thematic analysis. 26 family carers were interviewed. Three themes emerged: (1) COVID-19 restrictions negatively affected both residents with dementia and family carers, (2) Changing policies in care homes during COVID-19, and (3) Technology use in care homes during COVID-19. COVID-19 restrictions severely affected care home residents with dementia, disrupted their daily living, and accelerated their cognitive decline. Consequently carers' emotional burdens increased. Care home response strategies (safe visiting and digital solutions) were critical, though they were not enough to compensate for the lack of close in-person contacts. Mixed evidence emerged about the feasibility of care home strategies and their associated benefits. To meet arising needs and possible future pandemic waves, there is a need for updated health strategies. These should prioritise a continuity of therapeutic activities and minimize negative effects on residents' quality of life, whilst incorporating feasible and accessible digital solutions to provide remote communication and psychological support for family carers. [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]

Background: People with dementia are often marginalized and excluded from influence, also in relation to dementia research. There is, however, a growing requirement for inclusion through Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), but there is still limited knowledge on how researchers can fully benefit from the involvement of people with dementia in the development and testing of psychosocial interventions. This paper describes the results of a pan‐European consultation with people with dementia, synthesizing their views on outcomes of psychosocial interventions. Objective: To involve people with dementia in establishing what are meaningful outcomes when participating in psychosocial interventions. Setting and participants: Consultations took place at four divergent sites across Europe, involving twenty‐five people with dementia from nine European countries. Methods: The methods used for the consultation were developed through an iterative process involving people with dementia. Data from the consultation were analysed from a thematic analysis approach. Results: The results suggested that people with dementia wish to participate in interventions that enhance their well‐being, confidence, health, social participation and human rights. This highlights a need for improvements in psychosocial research to capture these outcomes. Discussion and conclusions: Involving people with dementia in discussions of psychosocial interventions has enhanced our understanding about meaningful outcome measures in research and methods of data collection. This study suggests that new outcome measures in psychosocial research are needed where concepts of positive psychology and social health can guide innovation and outcome measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a means of allowing people with dementia to take part in making choices, be autonomous and participate in social activities. Involving them in SDM is an important way of promoting social health. However, including families and dementia residents in decision-making can be challenging for care staff working in nursing homes. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an SDM framework for care planning in two nursing homes, one in Italy and one in the Netherlands. Methods: Focus group interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who, after being trained, applied the SDM framework. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Six months after the feasibility trial, focus group interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 10 in Italy; n = 9 in the Netherlands) were held. We found 6 themes and 15 categories. Within these themes, facilitators and barriers were identified. The categories of team collaboration, communication skills and nursing home policy were found to be facilitators to the implementation process, whereas regulations, lack of funding and of involvement of family caregivers were the main barriers. Family attitudes towards SDM could be both. The main difference between countries concerned the residents' cognitive status that influenced their degree of involvement. Conclusion: Communication skills training for professionals, training of family caregivers, and involvement of the management in the implementation process seem to be crucial factors in successfully implementing SDM in nursing homes, and increasing the involvement of families and dementia residents in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers. Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care. Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background There is a wide gap between knowledge about palliative care and its application in everyday clinical practice, affecting many patients in our ageing population. However, changing health care practice is a complex and challenging process. Therefore, the EU funded IMplementation of quality indicators in PAlliative Care sTudy (IMPACT) project aims to develop optimal implementation strategies to improve the organization of palliative care for people with cancer or with dementia in Europe. Methods and design The organization of palliative care in Europe will be mapped to develop and prepare strategies to improve it, and an overview of barriers and incentives regarding successful organizational changes in palliative care will be undertaken. A pre-test with a set of quality indicators (QIs), developed within the project, will be used to identify aspects of the organization of palliative care requiring change in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and primary care in five European countries. Based on the results of the pre-test, each setting will be invited to prioritise and improve aspects of their organization that appeared weak. The improvement objective they choose will be tailored to national and setting-specific barriers. Finally, a post-test with the same QIs will determine the effectiveness of the strategies used. An extensive process analysis will be conducted throughout the entire study. Discussion It is expected that the IMPACT project will provide professionals and policy makers useful tools to facilitate effective implementation of high-quality palliative cancer and dementia care in different settings in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]