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]

Background: There is extremely limited population‐based research on social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD). Population‐based samples have the potential to better characterize the SCD phenotype by mitigating confounds and biases that are typical of convenience and clinical samples. Aims: The aims of this preliminary epidemiologic study were to advance our understanding of the SCD phenotype relative to developmental language disorder (DLD), obtain an estimate of prevalence, identify risk factors and lay the groundwork for future population level research of SCD. Methods & Procedures: We analysed existing data from the EpiSLI Database to examine social communication skills in 393 8th grade (13–14 years) children with and without a history of DLD. The primary measure used to evaluate SCD was the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC‐2). Two case definitions of SCD reflecting DSM‐5 criteria were examined. Both definitions involved significant pragmatic impairment, employing a commonly adopted clinical cut‐point of 1.5 SD. In one case, pragmatic deficits could occur along with structural language deficits and, in the other case (established using principal component analysis), pragmatic and social skills were disproportionately lower than structural language abilities. Outcomes & Results: When using the first case definition, SCD was much more common in children with a history of DLD than without DLD and history of language disorder at kindergarten was a significant risk factor for SCD in adolescence. However, it is important to note that SCD could be found in children with no prior deficits in other aspects of language. When the second definition was employed, SCD was equally distributed across children with and without a history of DLD. Male sex was a significant risk factor using this case definition of SCD. The estimated prevalence of SCD ranged from 7% (SE = 1.5%) to 11% (SE = 1.7%), acknowledging that prevalence depends on the cut‐point selected to determine communication disorder. Conclusions & Implications: These findings contribute to our understanding of the association between SCD and DLD by recognizing varying profiles of pragmatic and social communication difficulties, which in turn may help refine our diagnostic categories. Preliminary prevalence estimates of SCD can serve as an initial guidepost for identification and planning for intervention services for this condition. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: There is considerable debate about the diagnostic category of SCD and its relation to other neurodevelopmental disorders. What this study adds to existing knowledge: Using data from a US‐based epidemiologic sample of DLD, this study offers new information about the association between SCD and DLD, provides preliminary estimates of SCD prevalence, and identifies risk factors for SCD. Clinical implications of this study: Improved understanding of possible profiles of pragmatic and social communication deficits will help to clarify diagnostic categories and preliminary prevalence estimates may assist with ensuring availability of adequate intervention services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: This paper examines risk factors of gambling and problem gambling among racial subgroups in the U.S. population, namely Native Americans and blacks, for whom research data are lacking.Methods: Findings are based on a large representative general population survey (n = 3,474) of gambling in the U.S. with an oversample of Native Americans (n = 549). Multiple domains were assessed including sociodemographic factors; ecological factors (census-defined neighborhood disadvantage, geocoded density of casinos within 30 miles of respondents' homes, and perceived gambling convenience); impulsivity; and alcohol abuse.Results: After controlling for all variables in the study, neighborhood disadvantage has a significantly greater effect on overall gambling, frequent gambling, and problem gambling for Native Americans than for the rest of the U.S.Population: In addition, the relationship between frequent gambling and heavier drinking is much stronger for blacks than for the rest of the U.S.Population: Discussion and Conclusions: There is a lack of research on gambling involvement among minority groups in the U.S. Blacks and Native Americans are at a higher risk for problem gambling as compared with the rest of the population. Furthermore, social factors and alcohol abuse may show a stronger co-occurrence with gambling involvement among minority groups than among whites.Scientific Significance: This study is a large representative U.S. sample with sizeable numbers of Native Americans and blacks. Thus, prevalence rates and risk factors can be assessed for these important population subgroups. This will allow for targeted intervention programs for Native Americans and blacks with problem gambling and alcohol abuse. (Am J Addict 2017;26:713-721). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]