Search

Background and Objectives Most persons with dementia experience behavioral and psychological symptoms (BPSD). While there is evidence that structured activity programs can be beneficial for persons with dementia and their caregivers, it is not well understood how joint engagement in shared activities affects BPSD and caregiver stress. The purpose of this study was to examine the moderating effect of doing a shared activity on the BPSD and caregiver stress. Research Design and Methods This study used an intensive longitudinal observational design in which caregivers completed baseline and once-a-day diary surveys for 21 days. Caregivers were asked whether they did a pleasant noncare activity with their relative, the presence of 8 BPSD, and their stress level. A moderation model in a structural equation model examined the relationship between these variables. Results Our sample consisted of 453 caregivers (87.4% female, 51.4% non-Hispanic White, mean age 53 years [standard deviation { SD }: 14]) and person living with dementia whose mean age was 79 years (SD : 9). On days when the caregivers engaged in a shared activity together with person living with dementia, there was a significant decrease in the BPSD (estimate −0.038, standard error [ SE ] = 0.016, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.069, −0.007, p value = 0.018). The effects of engaging in a shared activity decreased the impact of caregiver stress by 0.052 (estimate −0.052, SE = 0.018, 95% CI: −0.087, −0.017, p value = 0.004). At the between-person level, no differences were found in BPSD across caregivers who engaged or did not engage in shared activities. Discussion and Implications The results of our study indicate that doing a shared activity is associated with reduced BPSD among persons with dementia and may buffer the impact of caregiver stress on BPSD. Shared activities should be considered a key intervention component for dementia caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies—fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher's exact tests and independent T -tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present interpretations of the idea that "epidemiologists count" in response to the current status of membership and diversity and inclusion efforts within the Society for Epidemiological Research (SER). We review whom epidemiologists count to describe the (mis)representation of SER membership and how categorizations of people reflect social constructions of identity and biases that exist in broader society. We argue that what epidemiologists count — how diversity and inclusion are operationalized—has real-world implications on institutional norms and how inclusive/non-inclusive environments are. Finally, we examine which epidemiologists count within the field and argue that inclusion can only be achieved when we address how resources and opportunities are distributed among epidemiologists. To improve diversity and inclusion within SER and beyond, we recommend that SER strengthen its commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity by: 1) integrating this priority on all agendas; 2) enhancing efforts to improve self-awareness among members and accountability within the organization; 3) supporting the growth of a diversifying workforce in epidemiology; and 4) increasing the visibility of health disparities research and researchers in epidemiology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]