Search

BackgroundOlder adults and people with dementia are particularly vulnerable to social isolation. Social robots, including robotic pets, are promising technological interventions that can benefit the psychosocial health of older adults and people with dementia. However, issues such as high costs can lead to a lack of equal access and concerns about infection control. Although there are previous reviews on the use of robotic pets for older adults and people with dementia, none have included or had a focus on low-cost and familiarly and realistically designed pet robots. ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to synthesize evidence on the delivery and impact of low-cost, familiarly and realistically designed interactive robotic pets for older adults and people with dementia. MethodsThe Arksey and O’Malley framework was used to guide this review. First, the research question was identified. Second, searches were conducted on five electronic databases and Google Scholar. Studies were selected using a two-phase screening process, where two reviewers independently screened and extracted data using a standardized data extraction form. Finally, the results were discussed, categorized, and presented narratively. ResultsA total of 9 studies were included in the review. Positive impacts related to several psychosocial domains, including mood and affect, communication and social interaction, companionship, and other well-being outcomes. Issues and concerns associated with its use included misperceptions of the robotic pets as a live animal, ethical issues of attachment, negative reactions by users, and other pragmatic concerns such as hygiene and cost. ConclusionsOverall, the findings resonate with previous studies that investigated the effectiveness of other social robots, demonstrating the promise of these low-cost robotic pets in addressing the psychosocial needs of older adults and people with dementia. The affordability of these robotic pets appeared to influence the practicalities of real-world use, such as intervention delivery and infection control, which are especially relevant in light of COVID-19. Moving forward, studies should also consider comparing the effects of these low-cost robots with other robotic pets.

The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a staff-delivered physical exercise program embedded into the daily lives of older adults living in nursing homes. A randomized controlled pilot feasibility study was carried out, which included quantitative, qualitative, and economic assessments at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 months. Two nursing homes (one intervention and one control) took part. The exercise program was carried out on 3 days per week for 12 weeks and consisted of a program of Morning Movement (walking and sit-to-stand exercises) and Activity Bursts. The results confirm that the intervention and study processes are largely acceptable and feasible to implement in the nursing home setting. Potential short-term improvements in physical mobility and quality of life were noticed as positive mean changes and supported by qualitative assessment. Future randomized controlled trials should consider using the 6-meter walk test and refining nursing home and participant eligibility criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: People living with dementia are often at increased risk of becoming socially disconnected due to dementia-related challenges. In recent years, digital technology has been designed to help address the social health of people living with dementia and provide opportunities to promote or maintain their social connectedness. This paper presents the findings from phase two of a participatory action research project, which explored people living with dementia and their caregiver's experiences and perceptions of social connectedness and the potential role of Virtual Reality (VR) in promoting or maintaining same. Materials and Methods: People living with dementia (n = 8) and their informal caregivers (n = 8) participated in an individual, 1:1 online interview. Data analysis was guided by reflexive thematic analysis. Results: The findings presented four themes: social connectedness: lived experiences and insights, facilitating social connectedness, barriers to social connectedness and the potential of multi-user VR for social connectedness. People living with dementia experienced a range of personal, community and societal connectedness. Facilitators of social connectedness included supportive, non-judgemental, and reciprocal relationships, technology adoption, and personal and contextual facilitators. Dementia-related difficulties and periods of disruption or change were considered barriers to social connectedness. Multi-user VR was perceived as useful for promoting and maintaining social connectedness. Conclusions: The perceived usefulness of multi-user VR for social connectedness indicates its potential for use with this population. Understanding the lived experiences, barriers, and facilitators of social connectedness will assist researchers and the human-computer interaction community to inform the design of future multi-user VR for social connectedness outcomes with people living with dementia and their caregivers. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: People living with dementia and their caregivers consider social connectedness a vital aspect of living well with dementia. People living with dementia experience social connectedness across personal, community and societal domains. Supportive, non-judgemental or reciprocal relationships, fostering technology, and personal and contextual factors facilitate social connectedness for people living with dementia. Dementia-related barriers and periods of disruption and change can negatively impact the social connectedness of people living with dementia. People living with dementia and their caregivers consider multi-user virtual reality a promising technology to promote and maintain their social connectedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Getting a diagnosis of dementia does not equate to equitable access to care. People with dementia and unpaid carers face many barriers to care, which can vary within, and across, different countries and cultures. With little evidence across different countries, the aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the different and similar types of inequalities in dementia across Europe, and provide recommendations for addressing these. Methods: We conducted a brief online survey with INTERDEM and INTERDEM Academy members across Europe, and with members of Alzheimer Europe's European Working Group of People with Dementia and Carers in February and March 2023. Members were asked about whether inequalities in dementia care existed within their country; if yes, to highlight three key inequalities. Responses on barriers were coded into groups, and frequencies of inequalities were calculated. Highlighted inequalities were discussed and prioritised at face‐to‐face and virtual consensus meetings in England, Ireland, Italy, and Poland, involving people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers, and non‐profit organisations. Results: Forty‐nine academics, PhD students, people with dementia and unpaid carers from 10 countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Malta, Netherlands, UK) completed the survey. The most frequently identified inequalities focused on unawareness and lack of information, higher level system issues (i.e. lack of communication among care professionals), lack of service suitability, and stigma. Other barriers included workforce training and knowledge, financial costs, culture and language, lack of single‐point‐of‐contact person, age, and living location/postcode lottery. There was general consensus among people living dementia and care providers of unawareness as a key barrier in different European countries, with varied priorities in Ireland depending on geographical location. Conclusions: These findings provide a first insight on dementia inequalities across Europe, generate cross‐country learnings on how to address these inequalities in dementia, and can underpin further solution‐focused research that informs policy and key decision makers to implement changes. Key points: There are numerous similar barriers to accessing dementia care across different European countries.Some of the key challenges to equitable dementia care are lack of workforce knowledge, lack of information, stigma, financial barriers, and lack of communication among care professionals.Cultural challenges, postcode lottery, and service suitability were also raised as key barriers to dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This rapid review aims to identify the types of technologies used by people with dementia and their supporters during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the issues which influenced technology adoption within their usual care routines. PubMed, PsychInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane COVID reviews were searched to identify peer-review studies published since 2020. A total of 18 studies were included and synthesised thematically. Of these, most were conducted in the community (n = 15) with people with dementia only (n = 11) and involved qualitative methods (n = 11). The majority (n = 12) focused on digital off-the-shelf and low-cost solutions, such as free video conferencing platforms, to access care, socialise or take part in interventions. Whilst often well-accepted and associated with positive outcomes (such as improved social connectedness), lack of digital literacy or support to use technologies, limited access to appropriate technology, individuals' physical, cognitive, or sensory difficulties, were highlighted and likely to threaten the adoption of these solutions. The quality of the evidence was mixed, neither very robust nor easily generalisable which may be attributed to the challenges of conducting research during the pandemic or the need to rapidly adapt to a new reality. While COVID-19 has fast-tracked the adoption of technology, its use is likely to continue beyond the pandemic. We need to ensure this technology can leverage dementia support and care and that people with dementia are enabled and empowered to use it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explain the factors affecting glycemic control (measured by HbA1c) following the Dose Adjustment for Normal Eating (DAFNE) program. Background: DAFNE is a structured education program designed to assist persons with type 1 diabetes mellitus achieve optimal glycemic control. However, not all participants reach this goal. Few studies comprehensively explain why this is the case. Research Design: A concurrent mixed methods design. Data were collected from participants (n = 34) at three time points post DAFNE in five participating sites. Each data set was analyzed separately and then integrated. Results: Motivation and support differed for participants who were out of control and those in control. Conclusion: Setting targets/goals and motivations are key in helping participants attain optimal HbA1c.

Background: To fulfil the desire for evidence-based practice, there is impetus for occupational therapy (OT) to make research a priority and to encourage research engagement. Purpose: This study's aim was to explore occupational therapists' reasons for and for not getting involved in research and to determine potential barriers and enablers to engaging in research. Methods: Three focus groups were conducted with five participants each. Data were thematically analysed. Findings: Occupational therapists' reasons for expressing interest in getting involved in research were having an interest in the condition and/or the symptoms being studied; promoting client support and service development; and 'upskilling'. Three themes emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) motivation to get involved in research can be influenced; (2) 'firefighting': barriers and organisational culture; and (3) The nature of research needs consideration from an occupational therapist perspective. Implications: Findings suggest that though occupational therapists are able to get involved in research, it remains that there are difficulties in doing so (e.g., organisational culture); and such difficulties may outweigh both reasons and enablers to such involvement. Reasons for expressing interest, enablers, barriers and the relationships among them warrant further investigation and consideration with respect to involving occupational therapists in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]