Search

Background: Interventions promoting social activity may reduce behavioural psychological symptoms and improve quality of life in people living with dementia. This study aimed to identify social benefits for participants living with dementia in the context of Promoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED), an exercise intervention programme promoting physical activity and independence in participants living with dementia in England. Methods: This was a multi-method realist evaluation undertaking secondary analysis of data collected during the PrAISED process evaluation, including qualitative interviews with participants with dementia, caregivers and therapists, personal notes of researchers, and video recordings of therapy sessions. The study consisted of four phases: (1) Setting operational definition of social outcomes in PrAISED; (2) Developing Context, Mechanisms, Outcome (CMO) configurations; (3) Testing and refining CMOs; and (4) Synthesising definitive CMOs into a middle range theory. Results: Two CMOs were identified. (1) When therapists were able to make therapy sessions engaging and had the caregivers' support, the participants experienced therapy sessions as an opportunity to achieve goals in areas they were interested in. They also found the sessions enjoyable. This all led to the participants being highly engaged in their social interactions with the therapists. (2) When the participants realised that they were gaining benefits and progress through the PrAISED intervention, such as increased balance, this boosted their confidence in physical ability. It might also reduce caregivers' risk-aversion/gatekeeping attitude, which in turn would lead to participants' increased participation in social activities. Conclusion: The PrAISED intervention supported social participation in participants living with dementia. Under certain circumstances, home-based therapy interventions can be beneficial for social health (regardless of physical health gains). Given the limitations of currently available outcome measures to assess social participation, qualitative methods should be used to explore social health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, more people are living into advanced old age, with age-associated frailty, disability and multimorbidity. Achieving equity for all ages necessitates adapting healthcare systems. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have an important place in adapting evidence-based medicine and clinical care to reflect these changing needs. CPGs can facilitate better and more systematic care for older people. But they can also present a challenge to patient-centred care and shared decision-making when clinical and/or socioeconomic heterogeneity or personal priorities are not reflected in recommendations or in their application. Indeed, evidence is often lacking to enable this variability to be reflected in guidance. Evidence is more likely to be lacking about some sections of the population. Many older adults are at the intersection of many factors associated with exclusion from traditional clinical evidence sources with higher incidence of multimorbidity and disability compounded by poorer healthcare access and ultimately worse outcomes. We describe these challenges and illustrate how they can adversely affect CPG scope, the evidence available and its summation, the content of CPG recommendations and their patient-centred implementation. In all of this, we take older adults as our focus, but much of what we say will be applicable to other marginalised groups. Then, using the established process of formulating a CPG as a framework, we consider how these challenges can be mitigated, with particular attention to applicability and implementation. We consider why CPG recommendations on the same clinical areas may be inconsistent and describe approaches to ensuring that CPGs remain up to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constant observation is used in hospitals with people with dementia to manage their safety. However, opportunities for proactive care are not consistently recognised or utilised. A systematic review of constant observation was conducted to understand measures of effectiveness and facilitators for person-centred approaches. Electronic databases were searched between 2010 and 2022. Four reviewers completed screening, quality assessments and data extraction with 20% checked for consistency. Findings were presented through narrative synthesis (PROSPERO registration CRD42020221078). Twenty-four studies were included. Non-registered staff without specific training were the main providers of constant observation. Assessments and processes clarifying the level of observation encouraged reviews that linked initiation and discontinuation to a patient's changing needs. Examples of person-centred care, derived from studies of volunteers or staff employed to provide activities, demonstrated meaningful engagement could reassure a person and improve their mood. Proactive approaches that anticipated distress were thought to reduce behaviours that carried a risk of harm but supporting evidence was lacking. Non-registered staff are limited by organisational efforts to reduce risk, leading to a focus on containment. Trained staff who are supported during constant observation can connect with patients, provide comfort and potentially reduce behaviours that carry a risk of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measuring physical activity (PA) in people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia can be difficult. The aim was to investigate the validity and acceptability of three different PA measurement methods. The mixed-method analysis included 49 participants with mild cognitive impairment or dementia, who completed a daily calendar recording PA, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam PA Questionnaire, and those who wore a Misfit Shine accelerometer. The quantitative analysis showed equal completion rates for the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and the accelerometer but a lower completion rate for the calendar. Correlations between outcome measures were moderate or strong. The qualitative analysis indicated that all measures were acceptable, though some participants required help to complete the calendars or fasten the accelerometers. The study supported the validity of these methods for people with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia. Using accelerometers and completing calendars might increase the motivation to be active for some people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]