Search

Background Most people living with dementia want to remain in their own homes, supported by family and paid carers. Care at home often breaks down, necessitating transition to a care home and existing interventions are limited. To inform the development of psychosocial interventions to enable people with dementia to live well for longer at home, we qualitatively explored the views of people living with dementia, family carers and health and social care professionals, on how to achieve and maintain independence at home and what impedes this. Methods We conducted an inductive thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 11 people living with dementia, 19 professionals and 22 family carers in England. Results We identified four overarching themes: being in a safe and familiar environment, enabling not disabling care, maintaining relationships and community connectedness, and getting the right support. For people living with dementia, the realities of staying active were complex: there was a tension between accepting support that enabled independence and a feeling that in doing so they were accepting dependency. Their and professionals’ accounts prioritised autonomy and ‘living well with dementia’, while family carers prioritised avoiding harm. Professionals promoted positive risk-taking and facilitating independence, whereas family carers often felt they were left holding this risk. Discussion Psychosocial interventions must accommodate tensions between positive risk-taking and avoiding harm, facilitating autonomy and providing support. They should be adaptive and collaborative, combining self-management with flexible support. Compassionate implementation of rights-based dementia care must consider the emotional burden for family carers of supporting someone to live positively with risk.

Purpose To build an evidence-informed theoretical model describing how to support people with dementia to live well or for longer at home. Methods We searched electronic databases to August 2018 for papers meeting predetermined inclusion criteria in two reviews that informed our model. We scoped literature for theoretical models of how to enable people with dementia to live at home independently, with good life quality or for longer. We systematically reviewed Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting psychosocial intervention effects on time lived with dementia at home. Two researchers independently rated risk of bias. We developed our theoretical model through discussions with experts by personal, clinical and academic experiences, informed by this evidence base. Results Our scoping review included 52 studies. We divided models identified into: values and approaches (relational and recovery models; optimising environment and activities; family carer skills and support); care strategies (family carer-focused; needs and goal-based; self-management); and service models (case management; integrated; consumer-directed). The 11 RCTs included in our systematic review, all judged at low risk of bias, described only two interventions that increased time people with dementia lived in their own homes. These collectively encompassed all these components except for consumer-directed and integrated care. We developed and revised our model, using review evidence and expert consultation to define the final model. Conclusions Our theoretical model describes values, care strategies and service models that can be used in the design of interventions to enable people with dementia to live well and for longer at home. Trial registration PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099693 (scoping review). PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099200 (RCT systematic review).

The home-care workforce is in high demand globally. Home-care workers provide care for people at home, including practical and personal care, as well as other tasks such as medication management. We conducted a systematic review with the aims of understanding methods of observation that have been employed to study home care and to explore how these methods have enabled researchers to understand the quality of home care. We searched the literature using PubMed and CINAHL databases in May 2018, with no limits applied to date of publication. We searched for MeSH terms of 'Home Care Services', 'Home Health Care', 'Home Nursing' and 'Observation*'. Across 15 eligible studies, the types of observation methods employed were categorised as structured, guided and unstructured. The characteristics of these methods, such as the level of participation adopted by the observer, varied across the studies. Three themes were developed through a narrative synthesis of the included studies' findings: 'The impact of care delivery and organisational factors', 'Observing relationships and communications', and 'People and places behind closed doors'. We conclude that methods of observation are a fairly novel, yet rich and meaningful way of exploring home-care practice. Researchers undertaking observations should consider elements such as the number of researchers observing and the potential for variations, how and when to record the observations, possible triangulation of data, the researcher's reflective stance as an observer, as well as ethical considerations.

BackgroundPerinatal depression is well recognised as a mental health condition but ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to identify perinatal depression.DesignA prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study, with concurrent qualitative and economic evaluations.SettingMaternity services in England.ParticipantsA total of 391 pregnant women.Main outcome measuresWomen completed the Whooley questions, EPDS and a diagnostic reference standard (Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised) during pregnancy (20 weeks) and postnatally (3–4 months). Qualitative interviews were conducted with health professionals (HPs) and a subsample of women.ResultsDiagnostic accuracy results: depression prevalence rates were 10.3% during pregnancy and 10.5% postnatally. The Whooley questions and EPDS (cut-off point of ≥ 10) performed reasonably well, with comparable sensitivity [pregnancy: Whooley questions 85.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.2% to 94.3%; EPDS 82.5%, 95% CI 67.2% to 92.7%; postnatally: Whooley questions 85.7%, 95% CI 69.7% to 95.2%; EPDS 82.9%, 95% CI 66.4% to 93.4%] and specificity (pregnancy: Whooley questions 83.7%, 95% CI 79.4% to 87.4%; EPDS 86.6%, 95% CI 82.5% to 90.0%; postnatally: Whooley questions 80.6%, 95% CI 75.7% to 84.9%; EPDS 87.6%, 95% CI 83.3% to 91.1%). Diagnostic accuracy of the EPDS (cut-off point of ≥ 13) was poor at both time points (pregnancy: sensitivity 45%, 95% CI 29.3% to 61.5%, and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 93.0% to 97.6%; postnatally: sensitivity 62.9%, 95% CI 44.9% to 78.5%, and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 92.7% to 97.7%).Qualitative evaluation: women and HPs were supportive of screening/case-finding for perinatal depression. The EPDS was preferred to the Whooley questions by women and HPs, mainly because of its ‘softer’ wording. Whooley question 1 was thought to be less acceptable, largely because of the terms ‘depressed’ and ‘hopeless’, leading to women not revealing their depressive symptoms. HPs identified a ‘patient-centred’ environment that focused on the mother and baby to promote discussion about mental health.Cost-effectiveness results: screening/case-finding using the Whooley questions or the EPDS alone was not the most cost-effective strategy. A two-stage strategy, ‘Whooley questions followed by the Patient Health Questionnaire’ (a measure assessing depression symptomatology), was the most cost-effective strategy in the range between £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in both the prenatal and postnatal decision models.LimitationsPerinatal depression diagnosis was not cross-referenced with women’s medical records so the proportion of new cases identified is unknown. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening/case-finding strategies was not assessed as part of a randomised controlled trial.ConclusionsThe Whooley questions and EPDS had acceptable sensitivity and specificity, but their use in practice might be limited by low predictive value and variation in their acceptability. A two-stage strategy was more cost-effective than single-stage strategies. Neither case-finding instrument met National Screening Committee criteria.Future workThe yield of screening/case-finding should be established with reference to health-care records. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening/case-finding for perinatal depression needs to be tested in a randomised controlled trial.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundDepression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management.ObjectivesTo establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible.SettingSixty-nine general practices in the north of England.ParticipantsA total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder.InterventionsA low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7–8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months.ResultsIn total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care,n = 249; usual care,n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care,n = 198; usual care,n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points;p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI –0.92 to 1.29 score points;p = 0.741; at 18 months: p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of ‘unscheduled hospitalisation’, ‘other medically important condition’ and ‘death’. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY).LimitationsStudy limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data).ConclusionCollaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant.Future work recommendationsRecommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.