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: 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]

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]

Background: Traditional healthcare education typically focuses on short block clinical placements based on acute care, investigations and technical aspects of diagnosis and treatment. It may therefore fail to build the understanding, compassion and person-centred empathy needed to help those with long-term conditions, like dementia. Time for Dementia was developed to address this.Method: Parallel group comparison of two cohorts of UK medical students from universities, one participating in Time for Dementia (intervention group) and one not (control group). In Time for Dementia students visit a person with dementia and their family in pairs for 2 hours three times a year for 2 years, the control group received their normal curriculum.Results: In an adjusted multilevel model (intervention group n = 274, control n = 112), there was strong evidence supporting improvements for Time for Dementia participants in: total Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire score (coefficient: 2.19, p = 0.003) and its person-centredness subscale (1.32, p = 0.006) and weaker evidence in its hopefulness subscale (0.78, p = 0.070). There was also strong evidence of improvement in the Dementia Knowledge Questionnaire (1.63, p < 0.001) and Dementia Attitudes Scale (total score: 6.55, p < 0.001; social comfort subscale: 4.15, p < 0.001; dementia knowledge subscale: 3.38, p = 0.001) scores. No differences were observed on the Alzheimer's Disease Knowledge Scale, the Medical Condition Regard Scale or the Jefferson Scale of Empathy.Discussion: Time for Dementia may help improve the attitudes of medical students towards dementia promoting a person-centred approach and increasing social comfort. Such patient-focused programmes may be a useful complement to traditional medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]