Search

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted on the provision of care and routine activity of all National Health Service (NHS) services. While General Practitioner referrals to memory services in England have returned to pre‐pandemic levels, the estimated dementia diagnosis rate (DDR) fell by 5.4% between March 2020 and February 2023. Methods: In this paper we explore whether this reduction is accurate or is an artefact of the way the NHS collects data. Results: We explore the processes that may have affected national dementia diagnosis rates during and following the COVID‐19 pandemic. Conclusions: We discuss what action could be taken to improve the DDR in the future. Key points: Despite General Practitioner (GP) referrals to memory services in England returning to levels seen before the pandemic, there was a decline of 5.4% in the estimated dementia diagnosis rate (DDR) from March 2020 to February 2023.This paper explores the factors which may have affected the national DDR reduction. These include a backlog in dementia referrals, a reduction in coding of diagnoses, or a decrease in true dementia prevalence secondary to excess COVID‐19 deaths which has yet to be reflected in the DDR denominator.Further work is suggested to accurately capture dementia prevalence in the United Kingdom (UK). These include an up‐to‐date multicentre population‐based cohort study and adjusting the DDR denominator for factors known to affect dementia susceptibility such as deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This paper considers home from the perspective of people living with dementia supporting ongoing discourse around ageing in place and the significance of creating more inclusive communities. Methods: Forty‐six home tour interviews led by people living with dementia were conducted in England and Scotland to better understand the connectivity between home and neighbourhood for people living with dementia. These interviews used a range of participatory and creative approaches including video, photographic images and in situ interviews. Data were analysed via reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Three themes were identified in data analysis. 1. Connected home and neighbourhood, where participants revealed the dynamic relationship between home and neighbourhood; 2. Practices of home, where participants discussed the everyday nature of their homes and routines; and 3. Displaying home and family, which reflected participant's biographical homes in the context of living with dementia. Discussion: The findings show that home holds multiple meanings for people living with dementia. For example, home is understood as a part of the neighbourhood and an extension of the home space into gardens and backyards, thus extending existing discourses that solely focus on the inside of people's homes. For people living with dementia, homes are also sites of negotiation and renegotiation where new meanings are created to reflect the changing nature and context of the home. There is not one fixed solution to these issues. Support and understanding for people living with dementia will need to evolve to adapt to the shifting dynamics and multiple meanings of home. Key points: Neighbourhoods begin within homes and are interconnected. This relationship has important implications for the discourse of ageing in place.'Home' for people living with dementia holds the same meanings for those without dementia, but with some notable differences. It is important to recognise the shifting dynamics of home and to recognise the complexity of home in the context of dementia. There is not a fixed solution to the challenges of ageing at home with dementia, but support and understanding need to evolve alongside people with lived experience.Homes are a site of renegotiation where new meanings are created to reflect the changing nature of home and the lived experience of home for those with dementia.The study has provided findings through innovation in the research design. The employment of creative methods enabled people living with dementia to participate in sharing their own narratives of home.The work provides evidence where there is a current gap in understanding 'what matters' about home for people living with dementia. [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]

Objectives: The Covid‐19 pandemic has taken a heavy toll on many people living with dementia and carers. Caring for a person living with dementia at home with limited avenues for support and a break challenged many carers. Care homes in England closed to visitors, with very few offering opportunities for a short‐stay. We investigated impact of Covid‐19 on views and expectations of carers of people living with dementia about residential respite. Methods/Design: Qualitative interviews with 35 carers were conducted March–December 2020: 30 women and 5 men, with ages ranging 30–83 years. Interviews explored experiences, views of residential respite, and expectations post‐Covid. Data were thematically analysed and salient concepts were drawn out and discussed within the research team and study advisers. Results: Three themes were identified in transcripts, relating to impact of Covid‐19 on views and expectations of respite: (1) Carers described regularly negotiating risks and stresses of Covid, weighing up how to prevent infection and changing family arrangements to facilitate caring; (2) Carers were balancing different needs, prioritising needs of their relatives while bearing the impact of cumulative caregiving responsibilities. (3) Uncertainty about future residential respite continued, in terms of availability, ongoing restrictions and trustworthy information sources. Conclusions: Residential respite is a positive, acceptable option for some carers to get a break from caring. Covid‐19 may have heighted some of caregiving stressors and there may be an increased need for a break. Views of care homes developed during the pandemic suggest that individual confidence to use respite may need to be rebuilt. Key points: The Covid‐19 pandemic increased demands on carers of people living with dementia with fewer opportunities for social contact and breaksCarers described myriad ways to negotiate risks and stresses of Covid by developing ways to prevent infection and changing family arrangements. Carers also talked of balancing different needs, ways of prioritising the needs of their relatives while facing the impact of cumulative caregiving responsibilitiesThe uncertainty about future residential respite in terms of its availability, ongoing restrictions in care homes, and which sources of information to trust was noteworthyThe Covid‐19 pandemic may have heighted some demands of caregiving, and needs for a break may be greater. Individual confidence to use residential respite may need to be rebuilt [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global initiatives that promote public health responses to dementia have resulted in numerous countries developing new national policies. Current policy guidelines in England, for example, recommend that people diagnosed with mild-to-moderate dementia receive information and psychosocial interventions to improve their ability to 'live well'. However, it remains unclear to what extent these recommendations are being achieved.Methods: Self-reported information from 1537 people living with dementia and informant-reported information from 1277 carers of people living with dementia was used to quantify receipt of community-based dementia support services, including health and social care services provided by statutory or voluntary-sector organisations, in Britain from 2014 to 2016. Demographic factors associated with differences in receipt of support services were also investigated to identify particularly vulnerable groups of people living with dementia.Results: Both self- and informant reports suggested that approximately 50% of people living with dementia received support services for dementia. Receipt of support services was lower among people living with dementia who are older, female, and have fewer educational qualifications. Receipt of support services also differed according to diagnosis and carer status, but was unrelated to marital status.Conclusions: Limited receipt of dementia support services among people living with dementia in Britain provides a baseline to assess the efficacy of current policy guidelines regarding provision of information and support. Targeted efforts to facilitate receipt of support services among the particularly vulnerable groups identified in the current study could improve the efficacy of dementia support services both in Britain and internationally, and should inform policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]