Search

People with dementia from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds often face poor health and social outcomes such as stigma, depression, and reduced help seeking behaviours. Dementia friendly communities have been shown to reduce stigma, and the gap in health and social outcomes for people impacted by dementia. Despite the large presence of established dementia friendly communities, their functioning in multicultural communities remains underexplored. The aim of this review was to identify the barriers and facilitators of cultural inclusivity to inform the development of a multicultural dementia friendly community. We systematically searched for academic and grey literature regarding existing and prospective age or dementia-friendly communities that engaged with culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Using the matrix method, data on the barriers and facilitators to engagement were extracted. Papers were analysed for common themes and findings were integrated in a narrative format. A total of 3,164 papers were identified, 11 of which met inclusion criteria. There were 6 dementia friendly communities in North America, 3 in Europe, 1 in Australia and 1 in Asia. Analyses revealed that barriers to cultural inclusivity were centered around the accessibility of services, sociocultural factors, and the environment, including issues such as low awareness of dementia and stigma, language barriers, isolation, and the inaccessibility of transport and buildings. Leveraging existing cultural leaders and social structures to target culturally and linguistically diverse populations and develop tailored dementia friendly initiatives were key facilitators. To foster cultural inclusivity in dementia friendly communities, a culturally specific lens that addresses these barriers and utilises facilitators must be applied from the design stage through to implementation and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial Intelligence (AI) carries the potential for unprecedented disruption in radiology, with possible positive and negative consequences. The integration of AI in radiology holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare practices by advancing diagnosis, quantification, and management of multiple medical conditions. Nevertheless, the ever‑growing availability of AI tools in radiology highlights an increasing need to critically evaluate claims for its utility and to differentiate safe product offerings from potentially harmful, or fundamentally unhelpful ones. This multi‑society paper, presenting the views of Radiology Societies in the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, defines the potential practical problems and ethical issues surrounding the incorporation of AI into radiological practice. In addition to delineating the main points of concern that developers, regulators, and purchasers of AI tools should consider prior to their introduction into clinical practice, this statement also suggests methods to monitor their stability and safety in clinical use, and their suitability for possible autonomous function. This statement is intended to serve as a useful summary of the practical issues which should be considered by all parties involved in the development of radiology AI resources, and their implementation as clinical tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Post-stroke fatigue (PSF) is common and debilitating. However, while its effective management is a priority for clinicians and stroke survivors, there remains little evidence to provide guidance or underpin practice. Our aim, therefore, was to gain insights into the experiences of clinicians who routinely manage patients with fatigue. Method: Qualitative interview study. The target was to recruit a purposeful sample of approximately 20 participants with expertise in managing PSF and fatigue arising from other conditions. Maximum variation sampling was used to ensure a balance of participants across different settings. Data were analysed using a framework approach, iteratively developed and refined by including emergent themes. Results: We recruited 20 participants: nine occupational therapists (OTs), five physiotherapists, three nurses and three psychologists, which included three 'fatigue experts' from Europe and Australia. Analysis generated core themes around management and strategies used; these were similar regardless of professional background, clinical or geographical setting or condition treated. OTs felt a particular responsibility for fatigue management, although multidisciplinary teamwork was stressed by all. Conclusion: There are clear similarities in clinicians' experiences of managing PSF and fatigue across different conditions and also across professional groups. Clinicians rely predominantly on their own clinical knowledge for guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]