Search

Background: Depression after a stroke is a common complication that negatively influences stroke rehabilitation. Early identification, followed by adequate treatment of depression, improves recovery from stroke. To support early identification, the Post-stroke Depression Prediction Scale (DePreS) was developed to predict in the first week after stroke, the risk of depression in the second month. In this study we investigate the predictive accuracy of the DePreS in stroke patients., Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational study, hospitalized stroke patients were included from three stroke units in the Netherlands and Germany using consecutive sampling. In the first week after stroke, the predicted risk for depression was estimated with the DePreS. Two months after stroke, major depressive disorder was determined with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview., Results: Of the 93 included patients, 17 (18.3%) showed symptoms of major depressive disorder. With a cut-off value of ≥ 0, DePreS performed optimally with a sensitivity of 0.65 (95% CI 0.42-0.87), specificity of 0.74 (95% CI 0.64-0.84), positive predictive value of 0.35 (95% CI 0.19-0.52), and negative predictive value of 0.90 (95% CI 0.80-1.00). The AUC was 0.71 (95% CI 0.56-0.86)., Limitations: The generalizability of the study findings is limited to patients able to communicate adequately., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the DePreS is an adequate instrument for early and reliable identification of stroke patients who are not at risk of MDD in the second months after stroke. This limits the need for structural diagnostic follow-up to patients with a high risk., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aim: To explore inter-country variation of factors associated with institutionalization of people with dementia., Background: There is an urgent need for evidence on whether factors associated with admission to institutional dementia care are applicable across healthcare systems, as increasing evidence suggests that these factors could be country-specific., Design: A prospective cohort study., Method: Primary data were collected in eight European countries, at baseline and after 3 months follow-up (November 2010-April 2012). The sample included 2014 dyads of people with dementia and their informal caregivers; 791 patients were recently institutionalized, 1223 patients lived at home and were at risk of institutionalization. Associations between care setting (institution vs. home) and factors shown to influence institutionalization (e.g. cognition, independence in activities of daily life, behaviour) were studied., Results: Considerable differences were found between the eight countries in characteristics of people with dementia who had been recently admitted to ILTC. However, caregiver burden appeared the most consistent factor associated with institutionalization in all analyses. Indications for the importance of independence in activities of daily life were found as well, although country differences may be more prominent for this factor., Conclusion: Evidence was found for two common factors, crucial in the process of institutionalization across countries: caregiver burden and independency in activities of daily life. However, this study also suggests that admission to institutional dementia care is context-specific, as wide variation exists in factors associated with institutionalization across countries. Tailored best-practice strategies are needed to reflect variations in response to these needs., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Quality of life (Qol) is a widely selected outcome in intervention studies. The QUALIDEM is a dementia-specific Qol-instrument from The Netherlands. The aim of this study is to evaluate the scalability and internal consistency of the German version of the QUALIDEM., Methods: This secondary data analysis is based on a total sample of 634 residents with dementia from 43 nursing homes. The QUALIDEM consists of nine subscales that were applied to a subsample of 378 people with mild to severe dementia and six consecutive subscales that were applied to a subsample of 256 people with very severe dementia. Scalability, internal consistency and distribution scores were calculated for each predefined subscale using the Mokken scale analysis., Results: In people with mild to severe dementia, seven subscales, care relationship, positive affect, negative affect, restless tense behavior, positive self-image, social relations and feeling at home, were scalable (0.31 ≤ H ≤ 0.65) and internally consistent (Rho ≥ 0.62). The subscales social isolation (H = 0.28) and having something to do (H = 0.18) were not scalable and exhibited insufficient reliability scores (Rho ≤ 0.53). For people with very severe dementia, five subscales, care relationship, positive affect, restless tense behavior, negative affect and social relations, were scalable (0.33 ≤ H ≤ 0.65), but only the first three of these subscales showed acceptable internal consistency (Rho 0.59 - 0.86). The subscale social isolation was not scalable (H = 0.20) and exhibited poor internal consistency (Rho = 0.42)., Conclusions: The results show an acceptable scalability and internal consistency for seven QUALIDEM subscales for people with mild to severe dementia and three subscales for people with very severe dementia. The subscales having something to do (mild to severe dementia), negative affect (very severe dementia), social relations (very severe dementia) and social isolation (both versions) produced unsatisfactory results and require revision.

Objective: To investigate the attitudes of nursing staff towards restraint measures and restraint use in nursing home residents, and to investigate if these attitudes are influenced by country of residence and individual characteristics of nursing staff., Methods: A questionnaire on attitudes regarding restraints (subscales: reasons, consequences, and appropriateness of restraint use) and opinions regarding the restrictiveness of restraint measures and discomfort in using them was distributed to a convenience sample of nursing staff in The Netherlands (n=166), Germany (n=258), and Switzerland (n=184)., Results: In general, nursing staff held rather neutral opinions regarding the use of physical restraints, but assessed the use of restraints as an appropriate measure in their clinical practice. Gender and age were not related to attitudes of nursing staff, but we did find some differences in attitudes between nursing staff from the different countries. Dutch nursing staff were most positive regarding the reasons of restraint use (p<0.01), but were less positive than German and Swiss nursing staff regarding the appropriateness of restraint use (p<0.01). Swiss nursing staff were less positive than German nursing staff regarding the appropriateness of restraint use (p<0.01). Nursing staff with longer clinical experience showed a more negative attitude towards restraint use than nursing staff with less experience (p<0.05) and charge nurses had the least positive attitude towards restraint use (p<0.05). Opinions regarding restraint measures differed between the three countries. The use of bilateral bedrails was considered as a moderate restrictive measure; the use of belts was rated as the most restrictive measure and nursing staff expressed pronounced discomfort on the use of these measures., Conclusions: Nursing staff from three European countries have different attitudes and opinions regarding the use of physical restraints. The results underline the importance of more tailored, culturally sensitive interventions to reduce physical restraints in nursing homes.