Search

Background: Dementia Care Navigators (DCNs) are professionals without clinical training, who provide individualised emotional and practical support to people living with dementia, working alongside clinical services. Navigator services have been implemented but the service offered vary without a consistent overview provided. The aim of this narrative systematic review was to describe and compare existing service formats, and to synthesise evidence regarding their implementation and impacts. Methods: The review was registered on PROSPERO [CRD42021292518]. Three electronic databases were searched and included studies reported on a DCN service, defined as a service in which non‐clinically trained workers provide personalised advice and support to people with dementia and/or carers in the community. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and titles and read through full papers for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Standard Quality Assessment QualSyst. Results: We included 14 papers reporting on six studies. All services were US‐based and only varied by integration and training provided. Studies reported different degrees of impact on service utilisation and on symptoms and mental well‐being of people with dementia and their carers, with too little evidence to draw substantial/meaningful conclusions and studies employing different outcome measures. One study evidenced greater impacts on people with more advanced dementia compared to earlier stages. Conclusions: DCN services have the potential to effectively provide non‐clinical support to people with dementia and carers from the point of diagnosis. Further research from countries other than the USA, focusing on the impact on social care and social support service access and utilisation, and utilising similar established outcome measures are required. Key points: Evidence on the impact of Dementia Care Navigators (DCNs) is limited but shows promising benefits for people living with dementia and their carers.More research needs to be conducted in countries other than the US, where all evidence was reported, and with similar outcome measures to allow comparison.DCNs are a highly useful professional group without medical training, who can navigate people living with dementia and their carers to support and provide support themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: For many people with dementia and unpaid carers, using technology for care and support has become essential. Rapid proliferation of technology highlights the need to understand digital access to health and social care services for dementia. This mixed‐methods systematic review aims to explore digital access to health and social care services for dementia, from the perspective of people with dementia and unpaid carers. Methods: Nine electronic databases were searched in May 2023 for qualitative, quantitative, or mixed‐method studies, published in English or German, focused on experiences of using technology‐delivered health and social care services for people with dementia and unpaid carers. After removal of duplicates and screening, 44 empirical papers were included. Results: From the 44 studies, findings were grouped into five categories, highlighting experiences for people with dementia and unpaid carers: (1) Adapting to technology, (2) Inequalities and variations in outcomes, (3) Impact on caring, (4) Impact on health, and (5) Impact on relationships. Proliferation of technology in care access emphasised the need for quick adaptation to technology and examination of its impact. The impact of such service delivery has evidenced mixed findings. There were improvements in the health and wellbeing of people with dementia and unpaid carers, and benefits for their dyadic relationship. However, using technology for health and social care access is not always possible and is often reliant on unpaid carers for support. Lower tech‐literacy, lack of equipment or money to buy equipment and poor internet connection can impact the potential for positive outcomes. Conclusions: Technology can bring great benefits: social inclusion, improved service access and care. However, using technology in service delivery in dementia needs careful thought. Professionals and service providers need to be cognizant of the complex nature of dementia, and the benefits and challenges of hybrid service delivery. Key points: Evidence emphasises benefits and challenges to the availability, implementation, use, of technology in health and social care access in dementia.Though there are issues, technology can help improve quality of life for people with dementia, can support carers to care, and facilitate positive relationships between unpaid carers and people with dementia.Proliferation of technology for care access was expedited during COVID‐19, but has not been equally rolled out, making remote and disadvantaged groups less well‐served.A hybrid delivery of services in which people are given choice of delivery method, and are supported in accessing and using technology, will better serve people with dementia and unpaid carers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is one of the few non‐pharmacological interventions for people living with dementia shown to be effective and cost‐effective. What are the current and future cost and health‐related quality of life implications of scaling‐up CST to eligible new cases of dementia in England? Methods/design: Data from trials were combined with microsimulation and macrosimulation modelling to project future prevalence, needs and costs. Health and social costs, unpaid care costs and quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared with and without scaling‐up of CST and follow‐on maintenance CST (MCST). Results: Scaling‐up group CST requires year‐on‐year increases in expenditure (mainly on staff), but these would be partially offset by reductions in health and care costs. Unpaid care costs would increase. Scaling‐up MCST would also require additional expenditure, but without generating savings elsewhere. There would be improvements in general cognitive functioning and health‐related quality of life, summarised in terms of QALY gains. Cost per QALY for CST alone would increase from £12,596 in 2015 to £19,573 by 2040, which is below the threshold for cost‐effectiveness used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Cost per QALY for CST and MCST combined would grow from £19,883 in 2015 to £30,906 by 2040, making it less likely to be recommended by NICE on cost‐effectiveness grounds. Conclusions: Scaling‐up CST England for people with incident dementia can improve lives in an affordable, cost‐effective manner. Adding MCST also improves health‐related quality of life, but the economic evidence is less compelling. Key points: There are few evidence‐based non‐pharmacological interventions for people living with dementia. Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is both effective and cost‐effective, but current availability is constrainedThis paper reports the cost and health‐related quality of life implications of scaling‐up cognitive stimulation therapy to eligible people with dementia in England over a 25 year periodScaling‐up CST would improve general cognitive functioning and health‐related quality of life, but also increase costs for health and social care services, and for family and other unpaid carers. Adding maintenance CST would also improve health‐related quality of life, with even greater cost increasesThe higher costs of scaling‐up CST to the full eligible population over a 25 year period would be considered worth paying by reference to criteria used by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. The economic evidence for adding maintenance CST is less compelling [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]