Search

Background Chinese government launched a pilot study on public long-term care insurance (LTCI) recently. Guangzhou is one of the fifteen pilot cities, officially started providing LTCI in August 2017. An in-depth analysis of experimental data from the pilot city may provide suggestions for developing a fair and effective LTCI system. This study aimed to evaluate the LTCI pilot by exploring the characteristics and care needs of claimants, and performance of the assessment tool. Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study in which claims data between July 2018 and March 2019 in the Guangzhou pilot was analyzed. LTCI claimants during the study period were included. The care needs were determined based on claimants’ physical function assessed by the Barthel Index and their medical conditions. Rasch analysis was used to explore the performance of the Barthel Index. Results Among 4810 claimants included, 4582 (95.3%) obtained LTCI benefits. Of these beneficiaries, 4357 (95.1%) were ≧ 60 years old, and 791 (17.3%) had dementia. Among 228 (4.7%) unsuccessful claimants, 22 (0.5%) had dementia. The prevalence of stroke was high in beneficiaries with (38.1%) or without dementia (56.6%), as well as in unsuccessful claimants with (40.9%) or without dementia (52.4%). Beneficiaries without dementia needed more support for basic activities of daily living and nursing care than those with dementia, while beneficiaries with dementia were more likely to be institutionalized. Five (22.7%) unsuccessful claimants with dementia and 48 (23.3%) unsuccessful claimants without dementia were disabled in at least two basic self-care activities. Regarding Barthel Index, Rasch analysis showed threshold disordering in “mobility” and “climbing stairs”, and the narrow interval was observed between all the adjacent categories of the ten items ( Conclusions Stroke and dementia were two common reasons for needing long-term care in LTCI claimants. The Barthel Index is not suitable for assessing and dividing LTCI claimants, because of inappropriate items and narrow category responses. A comprehensive assessment and grading system is required, together with needs-led care services. The eligibility should be expanded gradually based on balance finance solutions.

Abnormal eating behaviors are common in patients with dementia. To comprehensively assess and understand these issues, we validated the Chinese version of the Abnormal Eating Behaviour Questionnaire. Data for psychometric property evaluation were obtained from 129 patients with dementia. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, dimensionality, and concurrent validity of the instrument were tested. The instrument showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.73), time stability (Intra-class correlation coefficient 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77-0.94), and concurrent validity (ρ = 0.60, P0.001). Six factors (eigenvalues1, factor loading ≥ 0.3) explaining 55.1% of the variance were obtained through exploratory factor analysis. Overall, 86.8% of the participants showed at least one abnormal eating behavior. The instrument is reliable and valid for assessing abnormal eating behaviors in patients with dementia. Patients with dementia had a high prevalence of abnormal eating behaviors.

ObjectivesTo evaluate application of the Barthel Index (BI) in assessing basic activities of daily living (ADL) of patients with dementia using Rasch analysis.DesignA multi-country cross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsNineteen long-term care facilities located in China, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand. A total of 644 patients with dementia were included.MethodsUnidimensionality, global and item fit, local dependence, person-item targeting, threshold disordering, and differential item functioning (DIF) were examined. Negative correlations between scores for DIF items and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Nursing Home version (NPI-NH) were evaluated.ResultsItem reliability (1.0) and person reliability (.88) were acceptable. The Rasch dimension explained 72.9% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 27), while the first contrast explained 6.6% (Eigenvalue = 2.4). The “mobility” was misfitting to the Rasch model (infit mean square = 1.86). The overall difficulty of the BI exceeded patients’ ability (person location = −2.27 logits). The “stairs climbing” and “mobility” showed narrow category thresholds (< 1.4 logits). The location of “controlling bladder” and “toilet use” overlapped. Removing “stairs climbing”, collapsing categories with narrow threshold widths in “mobility”, and combining “controlling bowel” and “controlling bladder” into one item, improved unidimensionality, and item fit of the scale. Only three items (“grooming”, “dressing”, and “toilet use”) were free from DIF across countries. The scores for “feeding” were negatively related to scores for “disinhibition” (r = −0.46, P < 0.01), and scores for “controlling bowel” were negatively related to scores for “disinhibition” (r = −0.44, P < 0.01), “agitation” (r = −0.32, P < 0.05), and “aggression” (r = −0.27, P < 0.01) in Japanese samples.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe performance of the BI for assessing patients with dementia might be compromised by misfit items, person–item mistargeting, measurement gaps, redundant items, narrow threshold width, and item bias. Mobility ability might not be helpful for determining capability of basic ADL in the patients. Comparisons of BI scores between countries should be undertaken with caution due to item bias. Neuropsychiatric symptoms might interact with basic ADL abilities of the patients. We will not suggest using the instrument in patients with dementia, without future refining to improve its performance.

ObjectivesTo explore differences in prevalence and disturbance of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) between institution-dwelling and community-dwelling patients with dementia.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted. Institution-dwelling (n=112) and community-dwelling patients with dementia (n=157) were enrolled from a nursing home and a tertiary psychiatric hospital located in Guangzhou, China, from March 2019 to September 2019. Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) was used to assess the prevalence and disturbance of BPSDs.ResultsThe community-dwelling patients were older, and having more antianxiety, anticonvulsant, anti- depression, anti-dementia medication use than institution-dwelling patients, while institution-dwelling patients used more antipsychotics than community-dwelling patients. The prevalence of hallucinations (χ2 = 8.55, P = 0.004), agitation (χ2 = 5.38, P = 0.026), depression (χ2 = 22.78, P < 0.001), anxiety (χ2 = 47.17, P < 0.001), aberrant motor behavior (χ2 = 4.72, P = 0.034), and sleep (χ2 = 4.16, P = 0.047) was higher in community-dwelling patients than that in institution-dwelling patients. Moreover, the frequency, severity, and disturbance of almost all of the BPSDs were higher in community-dwelling patients than those in institution-dwelling patients, except for euphoria. High Odds of having hallucination (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.37-4.49), anxiety (OR 7.36, 95% CI 3.82-14.17), sleep disorder (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.02-3.10) was observed in community-dwelling patients. Severe dementia was another risk factor for having hallucination (OR 5.48, 95% CI 2.25-13.38), anxiety (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.22-6.12), sleep disorder (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.21-5.64), apathy (OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.49-6.19), and irritability (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.24-5.51). Community-dwelling and severe dementia were two main risk factors for higher NPI scores (adjusted R2 = 0.30), and higher disturbance of anxiety (adjusted R2 = 0.21), sleep disorders (adjusted R2 = 0.15), hallucination (adjusted R2 = 0.12) and irritability (adjusted R2 = 0.11).ConclusionThe prevalence and disturbance of BPSDs were higher in community-dwelling patients with dementia than institution-dwelling patients. Community-dwelling and severe dementia were two main risk factors for higher prevalence and disturbance of BPSDs, especially for anxiety, sleep disorders, and hallucination. Providing community-based BPSDs coping skill training and support for informal caregivers are needed.

Background & aims:Eating-related problems are common in people with dementia, and may have many adverse consequences. To provide a comprehensive assessment and understanding of these issues, we validated the Chinese version of the Abnormal Eating Behavior Questionnaire (AEBQ), and investigated the prevalence of and factors related to eating-related problems in people with dementia.Methods:A total of 129 people with dementia were recruited from a nursing home and a psychiatric hospital for a cross -sectional study. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were tested using Cronbach’s α and intra-class correlation coefficient. Dimensionality was evaluated by principal component analysis. Concurrent validity was assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient to compare scores for AEBQ and the eating-related items in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Factors affecting the prevalence of eating-related problems were identified using logistic regression analysis.Results:The Chinese version of the AEBQ showed acceptable internal consistency, time stability, dimensionality, and concurrent validity. Overall, 86.8% of the participants showed eating-related problems. “Needs supervision” was the most common one, followed by “swallowing problems”. History of stroke (OR: 12.62, 95% CI: 1.58–101.06) and Clinical Dementia Rating (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.02–3.24) were risk factors for “swallowing problems”. Use of antipsychotics protected against “decline in table manners” (OR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06–0.74), but was a risk factor for “decrease in appetite” (OR: 3.15, 95% CI: 1.35–7.38). Clinical Dementia Rating (OR: 9.27, 95% CI: 4.13–20.79) independently predicted “needs supervision”.Conclusion:The Chinese version of the AEBQ is a reliable and valid tool. People with dementia had a high prevalence of eating-related problems. Clinical assessment of eating-related problems in this group needs to screen for secondary causes or risk factors, such as psychotropic medications and comorbidities. Targeted interventions should be used to manage reversible eating-related problems among people with dementia.