Search

IntroductionMost people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes, and are supported to do so by family carers and homecare workers. There are concerns that homecare is often unable to meet the needs of this client group, with limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve it for people living with dementia. We have developed a training and support programme for homecare workers (NIDUS-Professional) to be delivered alongside support sessions for people living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). We aim to assess (1) its acceptability among homecare workers and employing agencies, and (2) the feasibility of homecare workers, people living with dementia and their family carers completing the outcomes of intervention in a future randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, multisite feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 60-90 homecare workers, 30-60 clients living with dementia and their family carers through 6-9 English homecare agencies. In the intervention arm, homecare staff will be offered six group sessions on video call over three months, followed by monthly group sessions over the subsequent three-month period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and at six months.Ethics and disseminationThe study received ethical approval on 7 January 2020 from the Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee. Study reference: 19/LO/1667. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentation and blog to research and clinical audiences; we will attend forums to present findings to participating homecare agencies and their clients.Trial registration numberISRCTN15757555.

Objective To systematically review the research conducted on prevalence of frailty and prefrailty among community-dwelling older adults in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to estimate the pooled prevalence of frailty and prefrailty in communitydwelling older adults in LMICs. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42016036083. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, Web of Science, CINAHL and WHO Global Health Library were searched from their inception to 12 September 2017. Setting Low-income and middle-income countries. Participants Community-dwelling older adults aged =60 years. Results We screened 7057 citations and 56 studies were included. Forty-seven and 42 studies were included in the frailty and prefrailty meta-analysis, respectively. The majority of studies were from upper middle-income countries. One study was available from low-income countries. The prevalence of frailty varied from 3.9% (China) to 51.4% (Cuba) and prevalence of prefrailty ranged from 13.4% (Tanzania) to 71.6% (Brazil). The pooled prevalence of frailty was 17.4% (95% CI 14.4% to 20.7%, I²=99.2%) and prefrailty was 49.3% (95% CI 46.4% to 52.2%, I²=97.5%). The wide variation in prevalence rates across studies was largely explained by differences in frailty assessment method and the geographic region. These findings are for the studies with a minimum recruitment age 60, 65 and 70 years. Conclusion The prevalence of frailty and prefrailty appears higher in community-dwelling older adults in upper middle-income countries compared with highincome countries, which has important implications for healthcare planning. There is limited evidence on frailty prevalence in lower middle-income and low-income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Given many countries' ageing populations, policymakers must consider how to mitigate or reduce health problems associated with old age, within budgetary constraints. Evidence of use of digital technology in delaying the onset of illness and reducing healthcare service use is mixed, with no clear consensus as yet. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between frequent internet use and patterns of health or social care resource use in primary care attendees who took part in a study seeking to improve the health of older adults. Methods Participants recruited from primary care, aged >65 and living in semirural or urban areas in the south of England, were followed up at 3 and 6 months after completing a comprehensive questionnaire with personalised feedback on their health and well-being. We performed logistic regression analyses to investigate relationships between frequent internet use and patterns of service use, controlling for confounding factors, and clustering by general practitioner practice. Four categories of service use data were gathered: use of primary National Health Service (NHS) care; secondary NHS care; other community health and social care services; and assistance with washing, shopping and meals. Results Our results show, in this relatively healthy population, a positive relationship (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.23) between frequent internet use and use of any other community-based health services (physiotherapist, osteopath/chiropractor, dentist, optician/ optometrist, counselling service, smoking cessation service, chiropodist/podiatrist, emergency services, other non-specific health services) and no relationship with the other types of care. No causal relationship can be postulated due to the study's design. Conclusions No observed relationship between frequent internet use and primary or secondary care use was found, suggesting that older adults without internet access are not disadvantaged regarding healthcare use. Further research should explore how older people use the internet to access healthcare and the impact on health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a primary care-based intervention for improving post-diagnostic dementia care and support (PriDem), and implementation study procedures., Design: A non-randomised, mixed methods, feasibility study., Setting: Seven general practices from four primary care networks (PCNs) in the Northeast and Southeast of England., Participants: We aimed to recruit 80 people with dementia (PWD) and 66 carers INTERVENTION: Clinical Dementia Leads delivered a 12-month intervention in participating PCNs, to develop care systems, build staff capacity and capability, and deliver tailored care and support to PWD and carers., Outcomes: Recruitment and retention rates were measured. A mixed methods process evaluation evaluated feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study procedures. Using electronic care records, researchers extracted service use data and undertook a dementia care plan audit, preintervention and postintervention, assessing feasibility of measuring the primary implementation outcome: adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices. Participants completed quality of life, and service use measures at baseline, 4 and 9 months., Results: 60 PWD (75% of recruitment target) and 51 carers (77% of recruitment target) were recruited from seven general practices across four PCNs. Retention rate at 9 months was 70.0% of PWD and 76.5% of carers. The recruitment approach showed potential for including under-represented groups within dementia. Despite implementation challenges, the intervention was feasible and acceptable, and showed early signs of sustainability. Study procedures were feasible and accessible, although researcher capacity was crucial. Participants needed time and support to engage with the study. Care plan audit procedures were feasible and acceptable., Conclusions: The PriDem model is an acceptable and feasible intervention. A definitive study is warranted to fully inform dementia care policy and personalised dementia care planning guidance. Successful strategies to support inclusion of PWD and their carers in future research were developed., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN11677384., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Provision of personalised care planning is a national priority for people with dementia. Research suggests a lack of quality and consistency of care plans and reviews. The PriDem model of care was developed to deliver feasible and acceptable primary care-based postdiagnostic dementia care. We aimed to increase the adoption of personalised care planning for people with dementia, exploring implementation facilitators and barriers., Design: Mixed-method feasibility and implementation study., Setting: Seven general practices from four primary care networks (PCNs) in the Northeast and Southeast of England., Participants: A medical records audit collected data on 179 community-dwelling people with dementia preintervention, and 215 during the intervention year. The qualitative study recruited 26 health and social care professionals, 14 people with dementia and 16 carers linked to participating practices., Intervention: Clinical dementia leads (CDL) delivered a 12-month, systems-level intervention in participating PCNs, to develop care systems, build staff capacity and capability, and deliver tailored care and support to people with dementia and their carers., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Adoption of personalised care planning was assessed through a preintervention and postintervention audit of medical records. Implementation barriers and facilitators were explored through semistructured qualitative interviews and non-participant observation, analysed using codebook thematic analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory., Results: The proportion of personalised care plans increased from 37.4% (95% CI 30.3% to 44.5%) preintervention to 64.7% (95% CI 58.3% to 71.0%) in the intervention year. Qualitative findings suggest that the flexible nature of the PriDem intervention enabled staff to overcome contextual barriers through harnessing the skills of the wider multidisciplinary team, delivering increasingly holistic care to patients., Conclusions: Meaningful personalised care planning can be achieved through a team-based approach. Although improved guidelines for care planning are required, commissioners should consider the benefits of a CDL-led approach., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN11677384., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (M-LTCs) increases as adults age and impacts quality of life and health outcomes. To help people manage these conditions, complex behaviour change interventions are used, often based on research conducted in those with single LTCs. However, the needs of those with M-LTCs can differ due to complex health decision-making and engagement with multiple health and care teams., Objectives: The aim of this review is to identify whether current interventions are effective for people living with M-LTCs, and which outcomes are most appropriate to detect this change., Methods: Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science) were systematically searched, between January 1999 and January 2022, to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating effectiveness of behaviour change interventions in people with M-LTCs. Intervention characteristics, intervention effectiveness and outcome measures were meta-analysed and narratively synthesised., Results: 53 eligible articles were included. Emotional well-being and psychological distress (depression and anxiety) outcomes were most amenable to change (emotional well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.58); depression psychological distress: SMD -0.45 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.16); anxiety psychological distress: SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.28 to 0.00)), particularly for interventions with a collaborative care approach. Interventions targeting those with a physical and mental health condition and those with cognitive and/or behavioural activation approach saw larger reductions in psychological distress outcomes. Interventions that lasted for longer than 6 months significantly improved the widest variety of outcomes., Conclusion: Complex interventions can be successfully delivered to those with M-LTCs. These are most effective at reducing psychological distress in those with physical and mental LTCs. Further research is needed to identify the effective components of interventions for people with two or more physical LTCs and which outcome is most appropriate for detecting this change., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)