Search

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]

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: 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]

Objects: Dementia has physical, social and economic impacts, causing considerable distress for people with age‐related cognitive impairment (PWACI) and their caregivers. Electronic health (e‐health) interventions can provide convenient education to improve the coping competence of caregivers and have become an important approach to supporting them. Understanding the economic evidence of e‐health interventions will facilitate the decision making and implementation of integrating e‐health into routine health services. The present review aimed to appraise economic evidence related to e‐health interventions for PWACI and their caregivers. Methods: We systematically searched multiple cross‐disciplinary databases from inception to February 28, 2023. Two reviewers independently selected the trials, assessed the quality, and checked the data. A descriptive‐analytical narrative method was used to analyze the review findings. Results: Thirteen studies were analyzed, including 12 randomized controlled trials and one quasi‐experimental study. All included studies were conducted in developed countries. The included studies reported limited economic information. There were six cost‐effectiveness analysis, five cost‐consequence analysis and one partial economic evaluation. The included studies were heterogeneous, and varied in quality. The results demonstrated that e‐health multicomponent interventions can reduce the cost of health service utilization in short term (10–104 weeks). Conclusions: Few studies calculated the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of e‐health interventions. Preliminary evidence indicates that e‐health interventions can reduce the cost of health service utilization in the short term, but the cost‐effectiveness of e‐health interventions hasn't been identified. More robust evidence is needed to clarify the value of e‐health interventions for PWACI and their caregivers. Key points: This review identifies the characteristics of e‐health interventions for PWACI and their caregivers in economic evaluations through cost‐effectiveness analysis and cost‐consequence analysis.Preliminary evidence suggests that e‐health interventions can reduce the cost of health service utilization in the short term (10–104 weeks), but the cost‐effectiveness should be identified further.The results of this study contribute to the understanding of the economic effects of e‐health based on existing evidence and provide more robust evidence‐based practices.More long‐term and high‐quality economic evaluation trials are warranted to determine the value of e‐health interventions for PWACI and their caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: More people with dementia live in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) than in high‐income countries, but best‐practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high‐income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs. Methods: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias. Results: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008–2018. Over two‐thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%). Conclusions: Evidence‐generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence‐generation for LMICs. Key points: While the majority of people with dementia reside in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), it is not known what types of interventions have been studied in these settings and how effective they are.We conducted the first comprehensive mapping study of interventions for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs.This high‐level overview of dementia intervention research in LMICs identified the following gaps: dementia intervention research is highly concentrated in just a few LMICs, and skewed towards Traditional Chinese Medicine, Western pharmaceuticals, and supplements, with comparatively little evidence generated on interventions for carers.Lack of robust and locally relevant evidence on effective interventions presents a substantial challenge to designing evidence‐based treatment and care systems that help people with dementia or MCI and their carers to live better lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Identification of inappropriate medications in people living with severe dementia is a complex task which has the potential to reduce avoidable adverse events and increase quality of life. This scoping review (i) identifies published tools intended to aid deprescribing in people living with severe dementia and (ii) describes evaluations of their usefulness in clinical practice. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken, with Medline, Medline in Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science databases, from inception to April 2023, identifying tools for deprescribing in severe dementia. A tool was considered as any resource for deprescribing, including clinical study, scientific publication, health guideline, website, algorithm, model or framework. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of articles through abstract and full text review. Data extracted from included studies were summarized through narrative synthesis. Results: Twelve studies were identified from 18,633 articles screened. Tools were categorized into three groups: deprescribing interventions (n = 2), consensus‐based deprescribing criteria (n = 5), and medication‐specific recommendations (n = 5). Six studies developed tools using expert opinion and ten tools were tested in people living with severe dementia. Only one of the four studies that evaluated patient outcomes (cognitive change and adverse events) identified clear clinical benefit from medication withdrawal. Conclusions: Clinical application of current deprescribing tools is limited due to the lack of evidence‐based research on the clinical effects of individual medication deprescribing in people with severe dementia. Further research on patient outcomes, including cognitive change and adverse events, will help clarify the role of these tools in clinical care. Key points: Twelve studies were identified describing deprescribing tools for use in people living with severe dementia.Few tools provided evidence‐based recommendations, with many tools designed through expert opinion.Most tools tested in study populations that observed patient outcomes could not conclude clear clinical benefit from medication withdrawals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]