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: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia and to identify potential influencing factors. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across 10 electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Chinese Biomedical, China National Knowledge Internet, and WANFANG. Our search strategy covered the inception of the databases up to September 16, 2023, with an updated search conducted on March 8, 2024. Prevalence estimates of loneliness and social isolation, presented with 95% confidence intervals, were synthesized through meta‐analysis. Subgroup analyses and meta‐regression were employed to explore potential moderating variables and heterogeneity. Results: The study encompassed 27 research papers involving 11,134 informal carers from 17 different countries. The pooled prevalence of loneliness among informal carers of individuals with dementia was 50.8% (95% CI: 41.8%–59.8%), while the pooled prevalence of social isolation was 37.1% (95% CI: 26.7%–47.6%). Subgroup analyses and meta‐regression indicated that various factors significantly influenced the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation. These factors included the caregiving setting, study design, the intensity of loneliness, geographical location (continent), data collection time, and the choice of assessment tools. Conclusions: This study underscores the substantial prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia. It suggests that policymakers and healthcare providers should prioritize the development of targeted interventions and support systems to alleviate loneliness and social isolation within this vulnerable population. Key points: Informal carers of people with dementia contend with unique circumstances that render them susceptible to both loneliness and social isolation.There is a significant prevalence of loneliness and social isolation in informal carers of individuals with dementia.Several significant moderators influence the prevalence of loneliness and social isolation among informal carers of individuals with dementia.Moderator analysis can guide targeted interventions and support systems for at‐risk informal carers of people with dementia to alleviate loneliness and social isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psychiatric comorbidity is high in adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with up to 90% having at least one additional condition, and two‐thirds having two or more other diagnoses. With an increasing aging population in industrialized counties, knowing which psychiatric disorders frequently co‐occur in older adults with PTSD can have implications to improve diagnosis and treatment. This systematic literature review explores the current empirical literature on psychiatric comorbidity in older adults with PTSD. Method: Literature databases PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched. The following inclusion criteria were applied: research done since 2013, PTSD diagnosis based on diagnostic criteria according to Diagnostic and Statistics Manual‐Fifth Edition, International Classification of Diseases—10th Revision (ICD‐10), or ICD‐11, and studies include individuals aged 60 years or older. Results: Of 2068 potentially relevant papers identified, 246 articles were examined based on titles and abstracts. Five papers met the inclusion criteria and were included. Major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder were the most frequently studied and diagnosed psychiatric comorbidities in older adults with PTSD. Conclusions and implications: Screening for depression and substance use in older adults should include an assessment of trauma and PTSD. Additional studies in the general older adult population with PTSD and a broader range of comorbid psychiatric disorders are needed. Key points: Major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorders are the most frequently studied and diagnosed psychiatric comorbidities in older adults with PTSD.Based on this, screening for trauma and PTSD should be included in older adults with depression and substance useQualitative epidemiological studies on psychiatric comorbidities, such as personality disorders, in older adults with PTSD are limited and needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Assessing for recovery in delirium is essential in guiding ongoing investigation and treatment. Yet, there is little scrutiny and no research or clinical consensus on how recovery should be measured. We reviewed studies which used tests of neuropsychological domains and functional ability to track recovery of delirium longitudinally in acute hospital settings. Methods/Design: We systematically searched databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), from inception to October 14th, 2022. Inclusion criteria were: adult acute hospital patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with delirium by a validated tool; 1+ repeat assessment using an assessment tool measuring domains of delirium/functional recovery ≤7 days from baseline. Two reviewers independently screened articles, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. A narrative data synthesis was completed. Results: From 6533 screened citations, we included 39 papers (reporting 32 studies), with 2370 participants with delirium. Studies reported 21 tools with an average of four repeat assessments including baseline (range 2–10 assessments within ≤7 days), measuring 15 specific domains. General cognition, functional ability, arousal, attention and psychotic features were most commonly assessed for longitudinal change. Risk of bias was moderate to high for most studies. Conclusions: There was no standard approach for tracking change in specific domains of delirium. The methodological heterogeneity of studies was too high to draw firm conclusions on the effectiveness of assessment tools to measure delirium recovery. This highlights the need for standardised methods for assessing recovery from delirium. Key points: Assessing for recovery is an essential part of delirium care, to guide clinicians' ongoing investigation and treatment and to provide accurate information to patients and carers.It is unclear what assessment tools are used to measure delirium recovery on a longitudinal basis, specifically which neuropsychological and functional domains should be assessed.A total of 21 assessment tools measuring 15 different symptom domains of delirium were used in the included studies, however, there was no standard approach for tracking change in these domains over time.The symptom domains most frequently assessed for longitudinal change in the included studies were general cognition, functional ability, arousal, attention and psychotic features. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this review is to determine whether automated computerised tests accurately identify patients with progressive cognitive impairment and, if so, to investigate their role in monitoring disease progression and/or response to treatment.Methods: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Institute for Scientific Information, PsycINFO, and ProQuest) were searched from January 2005 to August 2015 to identify papers for inclusion. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of automated computerised tests for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia against a reference standard were included. Where possible, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratios were calculated. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used to assess risk of bias.Results: Sixteen studies assessing 11 diagnostic tools for MCI and early dementia were included. No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review of tools for monitoring progressive disease and response to treatment. The overall quality of the studies was good. However, the wide range of tests assessed and the non-standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy outcomes meant that statistical analysis was not possible.Conclusion: Some tests have shown promising results for identifying MCI and early dementia. However, concerns over small sample sizes, lack of replicability of studies, and lack of evidence available make it difficult to make recommendations on the clinical use of the computerised tests for diagnosing, monitoring progression, and treatment response for MCI and early dementia. Research is required to establish stable cut-off points for automated computerised tests used to diagnose patients with MCI or early dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: People with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) are at an increased risk of developing dementia. Efficient ways of identifying this 'at risk' population are required for larger-scale research studies. This systematic review describes the diagnostic accuracy of brief cognitive tests for detecting aMCI.Methods: Fifteen databases were searched from 1999 to July 2013 to identify papers for inclusion. Prospective studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of simple and brief cognitive tests for identifying people with aMCI against a reference standard (Petersen criteria) were included. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated. Predictive validity and test-retest reliability were also extracted, when provided. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.Results: Thirty-nine studies assessing 42 index tests were included. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment was the most comprehensively assessed test with evidence of high sensitivity for aMCI and good test-retest reliability, but low specificity was reported by the only study judged to be at low risk of bias. Other brief cognitive tests that include an assessment of word recall and multi-task tests that assess several cognitive domains were also found to exhibit high sensitivities and reasonable specificities. However, the confidence of the findings was affected by overall low quality of the contributing studies.Conclusion: Several brief cognitive tests have shown promising diagnostic test accuracy results for identifying aMCI. However, concerns over the quality of the constituent studies and lack of evidence on the predictive validity of these tests mean that new validation studies are warranted. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Supportive behaviors (both instrumental and emotional) from spouses and close family members can impact the trajectory of older adults' depressive symptoms. Interventions that target both the patient and support person may be more effective than interventions that target the patient only, in terms of alleviating mood symptoms in the identified patient. The purpose of this paper was to review the characteristics and findings of dyadic and family-oriented interventions for late-life mood disorders to determine if they are effective and beneficial.Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of reports in the literature on dyadic or family-oriented interventions for late-life mood disorders. We searched PubMed, OVID PsycINFO, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed journal articles in English through October 2014.Results: We identified 13 articles, representing a total of 10 independent investigations. Identified studies focused on spouses and close family members as support persons. Effect sizes for dyadic interventions that treated major depressive disorder were, on average, moderately strong, while effect sizes for dyadic interventions that reduced depressive symptoms were generally small. We did not identify any dyadic studies that treated bipolar disorder.Conclusions: This review showed that dyadic interventions are feasible and that these interventions can decrease symptomatology in individuals who have major depressive disorder. Research is needed to understand the relative efficacy of a dyadic approach over a single-target approach in treating depression. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]