Search

Objectives Providers who work closely with ethnic minority people with dementia and their families are pivotal in helping them access services. However, few studies have examined how these providers actually do this work. Using the concept of "boundary crossers," this article investigates the strategies applied by these providers to facilitate access to dementia services for ethnic minority people with dementia and their families. Methods Between 2017 and 2020, in-depth video-recorded interviews were conducted with 27 health, aged care, and community service providers working with ethnic minority people living with dementia across Australia. Interviews were conducted in one of seven languages and/or in English, then translated and transcribed verbatim into English. The data were analyzed thematically. Results Family and community stigma associated with dementia and extra-familial care were significant barriers to families engaging with services. To overcome these barriers, participants worked at the boundaries of culture and dementia, community and systems, strategically using English and other vernaculars, clinical and cultural terminology, building trust and rapport, and assisting with service navigation to improve access. Concurrently, they were cognizant of familial boundaries and were careful to provide services that were culturally appropriate without supplanting the families' role. Discussion In negotiating cultural, social, and professional boundaries, providers undertake multidimensional and complex work that involves education, advocacy, negotiation, navigation, creativity, and emotional engagement. This work is largely undervalued but offers a model of care that facilitates social and community development as well as service integration across health, aged care, and social services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many health and social care services are implementing video remote interpreting (VRI) to deal with supply shortages and high costs of language interpreting for linguistically diverse clients. This qualitative study examines stakeholders' perspectives on using VRI for home-based cognitive assessments, which are routinely performed with older people during aged care assessments in Australia. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with clients, assessors and interpreters in Melbourne and a regional Victorian city. We found that across stakeholder groups participants usually regard VRI as an acceptable alternative to face-to-face interpreting when the latter is not possible. Freelance interpreters said VRI saved on travel time and expenditure and afforded them financial and practical benefits that enabled them to better meet the high demand for their work. However, stakeholders also pointed to the limitations of VRI, including technical challenges, sound and video quality, and difficulties with positioning equipment optimally during interviews. The assessors and interpreters agreed that VRI was inappropriate when clients are known to be cognitively impaired, and that face-to-face interpreting is necessary to support these clients and ensure assessment accuracy. We suggest that plans by health or social care services to replace face-to-face interpreting with VRI should be balanced against the needs of clients and any impacts on professional practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ethnicity influences dementia etiology, prognosis, and treatment, while culture shapes help-seeking and care. Despite increasing population diversity in highincome settlement countries, ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in dementia research. We investigated approaches to enhance the recruitment, and consistent collection and analysis of variables relevant to, ethnic minorities in dementia studies to make recommendations for consistent practice in dementia research. Methods:We did a scoping review, searching Embase, PsycINFO, Medline, CENTRAL, and CINAHL between January 1, 2010 and January 7, 2020. Dementia clinical and cohort studies that actively recruited ethnic minorities in high-income countries were included. A steering group of experts developed criteria through which high-quality studies were identified. Results: Sixty-six articles were retrieved (51 observational; 15 experimental). Use of interpreters and translators (n = 17) was the most common method to facilitate participant recruitment. Race and ethnicity (n = 59) were the most common variables collected, followed by information on native language (n = 14), country of birth (n = 9), and length of time in country of settlement (n = 8). Thirty-three studies translated or used a culturally validated instrument. Twenty-three articles conducted subgroup analyses based on ethnicity. Six high-quality studies facilitated inclusion through community engagement, collected information on multiple aspects of ethnic diversity, and adjusted/substratified to analyze the impact of ethnicity on dementia. Discussion: We make recommendations for consistent recruitment, collection, and reporting of variables relating to ethnic and cultural diversity in dementia research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Evidence in the literature demonstrates the reliability of cognitive screening assessments using video technology in English-speaking older populations. However, this has not been tested in older culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations who require an interpreter, and what the associated costs would be. The aim was to determine if the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) could be reliably administered over video-interpreting methods compared with face-to-face interpreting. In addition, the study aims to compare the costs of video-interpreting with the costs of face-to-face interpreting.Methods: We compared similarity of the RUDAS and GDS scores when administered face-to-face and via video-interpreting. The similarity of scores between methods was analysed using paired t-tests and Bland-Altman plots. A costing analysis was done using a micro-costing approach to estimate the costs of video-interpreting compared with face-to-face, extrapolated to a national level.Results: Analysis found no significant differences in the mean assessment scores between video-interpreting and face-to-face (RUDAS mean difference: -0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.09, 0.38, GDS mean difference: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.38, 0.83). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that 71% of RUDAS scores and 82% of GDS scores were within the maximum allowed difference of ±2 units. Costing analysis showed a A$7 saving per assessment when using video-interpreting compared with face-to-face, with a total national saving of A$247,350.Discussion: Video-interpreting was found to be as reliable as face-to-face interpreting for both RUDAS and GDS assessments. Cost analysis indicates that video-interpreting is cheaper than face-to-face interpreting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ethnicity influences dementia etiology, prognosis, and treatment, while culture shapes help-seeking and care. Despite increasing population diversity in high-income settlement countries, ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in dementia research. We investigated approaches to enhance the recruitment, and consistent collection and analysis of variables relevant to, ethnic minorities in dementia studies to make recommendations for consistent practice in dementia research., Methods: We did a scoping review, searching Embase, PsycINFO, Medline, CENTRAL, and CINAHL between January 1, 2010 and January 7, 2020. Dementia clinical and cohort studies that actively recruited ethnic minorities in high-income countries were included. A steering group of experts developed criteria through which high-quality studies were identified., Results: Sixty-six articles were retrieved (51 observational; 15 experimental). Use of interpreters and translators (n = 17) was the most common method to facilitate participant recruitment. Race and ethnicity (n = 59) were the most common variables collected, followed by information on native language (n = 14), country of birth (n = 9), and length of time in country of settlement (n = 8). Thirty-three studies translated or used a culturally validated instrument. Twenty-three articles conducted subgroup analyses based on ethnicity. Six high-quality studies facilitated inclusion through community engagement, collected information on multiple aspects of ethnic diversity, and adjusted/substratified to analyze the impact of ethnicity on dementia., Discussion: We make recommendations for consistent recruitment, collection, and reporting of variables relating to ethnic and cultural diversity in dementia research., Competing Interests: BB has received funds from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); Australian Research Council (ARC); Australian Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF); Alzheimer's Association US; and several philanthropic groups for projects related to dementia, ethnicity, and aging. SC was an employee for the NNIDR at the time of conducting the research. JS has received funds from the Australian Dementia Centre for Research Collaboration (DCRC). AT reports nothing to disclose. SE was an employee for the NNIDR at the time of conducting the research and received support for attending work‐related meetings and/or travel within Australia during her tenure. FDC reports nothing to disclose. AM reports nothing to disclose. RD reports being a volunteer co‐Chair of Kippax Uniting Church and during 2020 being a volunteer board member of Kippax Uniting Care. Neither entity has a business or financial interest in the subject matter of this article. AD has received funds from the NHMRC and royalties as the author of a textbook. CE reports nothing to disclose. CaE reports nothing to disclose. MAG reports nothing to disclose. DH reports nothing to disclose. AL has received funds from the MRFF, Defence Science and Technology, and The University of Melbourne and has received travel support from the DCRC. L‐FL has received funds from the NHMRC, Dementia Australia, DCRC, Benevolent Society, and The EU Joint Programme–Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND), and serves on the Dementia Australia Research Advisory Board. NS reports nothing to disclose. JT has received funds from the NHMRC and ARC., (© 2022 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)