Search

Promoting dementia‐friendly communities is an important strategy for improving quality of life for people with dementia and dementia‐family caregivers. The process of building dementia‐friendly communities should include all people living in the community. The objective of this study was to compare perceived dementia friendliness in the community among people with dementia, family caregivers, service providers, and the general public. In Taiwan, we surveyed 60 people with dementia, 140 family caregivers, and 200 members of the general public face to face, with 200 service providers surveyed by mail. Participants completed the Perceived Community Dementia Friendliness measure, consisting of seven subscales: care services, community members, community environment, community interactions, transportation, hospitals, and stores and organisations. This measure has acceptable convergent validity, construct validity, and internal consistency reliability for use in Taiwan. Differences in perceived dementia friendliness were examined by chi‐square tests/analysis of variance. Among the seven subscales, hospitals were rated with good dementia friendliness by 70% of people with dementia (n = 42); however, care services were rated poor by 23.3% of people with dementia (n = 14). Hospitals were also rated with good dementia friendliness by 39.2% of family caregivers (n = 54). Care services were rated as having good dementia friendliness by 43.5% of service providers (n = 87) and 47% of the general public (n = 86). Furthermore, community interactions were rated as good by small percentages of family caregivers (11.4%, n = 16), service providers (22.2%, n = 44), and the general public (30.9%, n = 58). Family caregivers, service providers, and the general public rated hospitals with the highest mean dementia‐friendliness score and community interactions with the lowest. Perceived community‐dementia friendliness among participants with dementia differed from that of participants without. People with dementia prioritised improving care services, while people without dementia rated facilitating community interactions as more vital. These differences provide vital insights into understanding the policies and administration of dementia‐friendly communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dementia causes cognitive and memory difficulties which can reduce the driving safety of the individuals. The decision‐making process for driving retirement is challenging, and yet limited guidance is available. Objectives: This article reports the development of the Taiwanese version of dementia and driving decision aid (DDDA) and the evaluation from stakeholders through a dementia and driving education programme. Methods: A multi‐method approach was adopted using a pre‐test, post‐test survey and focus group interviews. A total of 154 healthcare professionals, family caregivers and people with dementia participated education programme, and 12 experts attended the focus group discussion. The survey included demographics, knowledge, confidence, competence and awareness of using DDDA. Participants completed a survey prior and immediately after the education programme. We translated a 32‐page interactive DDDA booklet from the original English version to Mandarin. The education programme consisted of three‐hour dementia and driving education module delivered both face‐to‐face and online. Results: The majority of participants described the booklet as balanced (91.7%) with the information presented in a 'good' or 'excellent' manner (93.4%). Most participants (85.3%) felt that DDDA helps them in making decisions about driving. Five themes were extracted from the focus group interview: (1) approach targeted to people with dementia, (2) specific content and additional information, (3) culturally appropriate modification, (4) having the right to drive and (5) booklet dissemination. The knowledge, confidence, competence and awareness of using the DDDA increased significantly (p < 0.001) after the education programmes. Conclusion: We anticipate that use of the DDDA booklet will raise awareness of this social and health issue among the general public and facilitate collaborations with clinicians, municipalities and related organisations in providing a decision‐making resource material for those with people living with dementia and their families. This study was not a clinical trial and the focus of this study was development and evaluation of the DDDA booklet. As mentioned in the methods section, participants were invited to attend the education program and provided their thoughts on the DDDA booklet based on their satisfaction level. Moreover, the education program was a one‐day, workshop type program. This study was neither "prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health‐related interventions" nor "to evaluate the effects on health outcomes", according to the definition of clinical trial by WHO. Therefore, we did not consider this study was a clinical trial. Implications for practice: There is an urgent need for supporting people with dementia and their families to negotiate the complex decision‐making involved in deciding to change their approach to driving. The DDDA booklet can fill an important gap in service delivery to people with dementia who are adjusting to life without driving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Advanced Nursing (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This review summarized the applicability of various decision-making tools for helping people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their families make decisions. This study was a narrative literature review. The protocol of this review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020182259). People with dementia or MCI and their families were included in this study. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Chinese Electronic Periodical Services databases from inception to May 2021. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for a variety of study designs were used. Topics related to decision-making were categorized as everyday activity decisions or medical treatment decisions. Various types of decision-making tools were identified, and we observed that decision aids can be modified and used for both everyday activity decisions and medical treatment decisions. In addition to highlighting decision aids for specific decisional issues and topics, we also elucidated other validated tools that can be used to facilitate the decision-making process. This study highlighted the topics involved in decision-making and using decision-making tools. The current review provides information that can help individuals and health care professionals choose optimal decision-making tools. On the basis of our findings, future studies can determine the most appropriate tools for intervention or outcome measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]