Search

Measuring Quality of Life (QOL) can be difficult due to its individual character. To explore the value of personalized QOL measurement for people with dementia, personalized versions of two dementia-specific QOL scales (Dementia quality of Life (DQoL) and Quaility of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD)) were constructed. This study investigated whether the personalized measures are more valid to detect variations in QOL than their standard versions for people with mild to moderate dementia, with sufficient internal consistency. Moreover, the relationship between the personalized QOL measures and severity of dementia was investigated. Finally, the study explored the differences between countries regarding the personalized overall QOL and differences in the importance of QOL domains. This explorative one-group design study used baseline data from the MEETINGDEM study into the implementation of the Meeting Centres Support Programme in Italy, Poland and the UK. The personalized versions of the DQoL and QoL-AD were reliable, but not more valid than their standard versions. No relationship between severity of dementia and personalized QOL was found. While no differences were found between countries for the overall QOL score, some QOL domains were valued differently: people with dementia from the UK rated self-esteem, mood, physical health, energy level and the ability to do chores around the house significantly less important than people from Italy and Poland. The personalized versions of the DQoL and QoL-AD may offer dementia care practice important insights into what domains contribute most to an individual’s QOL.

Background and Aims. The Meeting Centres Support Programme (MCSP) for people with mild to moderately severe dementia and their carers proved effective in the Netherlands, and is now being implemented in other European countries. This study aimed to compare factors that at the preparation of two meeting centres in Italy were expected and experienced as facilitating or impeding implementation. Methods. At the start, stakeholders (n = 19) filled in a checklist on expected facilitators and barriers. After opening the centres, experienced facilitators and barriers were inventoried in semi-structured interviews (n = 13) and analysed by two independent researchers, using a Theoretical model on implementation. Additionally, minutes of the initiative group were investigated. Expected and experienced facilitators and barriers were compared. Results. In contrary to the expectations, the use of existing networks/collaboration between organizations facilitated the preparation phase. As expected, motivated stakeholders were facilitating. Shortening of the original time plan (for pragmatic reasons) was not expected, and made some preparatory tasks difficult to fulfil. Lack of Italian examples and cultural differences in working method made the realization of meeting centres difficult to imagine. Some experienced factors were not foreseen due to unexpected events. Conclusions. Most aspects of MCSP appeared well implementable in the Italian setting. Many factors were in line with the Dutch implementation study, new influencing factors were also found.

In this article an overview is given of ten different methods of psychosocial treatment for dementia patients, such as psychotherapy, psychomotor therapy, behavior modification, remotivation and resocialisation therapy, reminiscence groups, reality orientation training, activity groups, Validation and normalisation of the living pattern and the environment. It becomes clear that in the past two decennia there is an increasing interest for the experiences of the elderly person. Whereas in the seventies most interventions were behavior therapeutic, in recent years more and more treatment methods are based on psychodynamic and interactional theories. There is an increasing comprehension for the often bizar behavior of demented elderly people. This opens perspectives for the treatment of this group of patients.

Background: The Meeting Centres Support Programme (MCSP) offers a combined approach to providing practical, emotional and social support to people living with mild to moderately severe dementia and their family carers in the community. Methods: A mixed methods explanatory design was used. The evaluation took place within the framework of the international Joint Programme – Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) – MEETINGDEM study in nine Meeting Centres in Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. Eighty-seven people with dementia and 81 family carers completed a user evaluation survey after three months and 83 people with dementia and 84 carers after 6 months of participation in MCSP. Thirty-two people with dementia and 30 carers took part in focus groups after nine months. Results: The percentage of people with dementia who were very satisfied with the programme increased significantly over time (p = 0.05). The majority of carers reported that they felt less burdened after three months of participation in MCSP (48.1% much less; 35.4% a little less). After six months, this percentage increased significantly to 91% (p = 0.04, 57.7% much less; 33.3% little less). Focus group analysis showed that people with dementia and carers in all countries/centres improved their ability to maintain emotional balance. Conclusions: The MCSP is highly appreciated by people with dementia and carers in all countries and it confirms the results of previous research into MCSP in the Netherlands. Our findings indicate that MCSP is a model that can help its users to increase their capacity to deal with the challenges caused by dementia and can promote emotional balance.

Measuring Quality of Life (QOL) can be difficult due to its individual character. To explore the value of personalized QOL measurement for people with dementia, personalized versions of two dementia-specific QOL scales (Dementia quality of Life (DQoL) and Quaility of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD)) were constructed. This study investigated whether the personalized measures are more valid to detect variations in QOL than their standard versions for people with mild to moderate dementia, with sufficient internal consistency. Moreover, the relationship between the personalized QOL measures and severity of dementia was investigated. Finally, the study explored the differences between countries regarding the personalized overall QOL and differences in the importance of QOL domains. This explorative one-group design study used baseline data from the MEETINGDEM study into the implementation of the Meeting Centres Support Programme in Italy, Poland and the UK. The personalized versions of the DQoL and QoL-AD were reliable, but not more valid than their standard versions. No relationship between severity of dementia and personalized QOL was found. While no differences were found between countries for the overall QOL score, some QOL domains were valued differently: people with dementia from the UK rated self-esteem, mood, physical health, energy level and the ability to do chores around the house significantly less important than people from Italy and Poland. The personalized versions of the DQoL and QoL-AD may offer dementia care practice important insights into what domains contribute most to an individual’s QOL.

Objectives: This is the first study to focus on the role and impact of a psychosocial intervention, the Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP), for people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) on the experience of stigmatisation across three different European countries. Method: A pre/post-test control group study design compared outcomes for 114 people with dementia (n=74) and MCI (n=40) in Italy, Poland and the UK who received either the MCSP or usual care (UC). The ‘Stigma Impact Scale, neurological disease’ (SIS) was administered at two points in time, 6 months apart. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) was used to assess the level of cognitive impairment. Results: Although statistical analysis did not show any significant differences between MCSP and UC at pre/post-test for the 3 countries combined, there were significant results for individual countries. In Italy, the level of SIS was significantly lower (p=0.02) in the MCSP group following the intervention. The level of Social Isolation increased significantly (p=0.05) in the UC group at follow-up in Poland. The level of Social Rejection was significantly higher (p=0.03) over time for UK participants receiving MCSP compared to UC. Conclusion: The experience of stigma by people living with dementia and MCI is complex and there may be different country specific contexts and mechanisms. The results do not enable us to confirm or disconfirm the impact of a social support programme, such as MCSP, on this experience. Difficulties in directly measuring the level of stigma in this group also requires further research.

Objectives: Until now little research has been done to answer the question of whether people with dementia experience stigma. No previous studies investigated possible differences between countries and cultures. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the experience of stigma (with social isolation, social rejection and internalised shame as components) among people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 180) in Italy (n = 79), Poland (n = 47) and the United Kingdom (UK) (n = 54); and to investigate possible relationships with demographical and clinical outcomes. Methods: A one group multinational cross-sectional design was used. Stigma was measured with the Stigma Impact Scale (SIS), quality of life aspects with Dementia Quality of Life scale (DQOL) and Quality of Life Alzheimer’s Disease scale (QOL-AD), social support with Duke Social Support Index (DSSI), cognitive functioning with Global Deterioration Scale (GDS). Results: The level of stigmatisation (SIS) among study participants varied from 2 to 65 (median = 33.5; Q1 = 27; Q3 = 41). People with dementia in the UK experienced a higher level of stigmatisation than people in Italy and Poland. The experienced stigmatisation negatively correlated with social support (DSSI; rho = −0.42, p = 0.000) and quality of life (QOL-AD; rho = −0.39, p = 0.000). People who experienced a higher level of stigmatisation scored higher in negative mood DQOL subscale (rho = 0.28, p = 0.0002). Conclusion: There is a strong need for research into the individual experience of people with dementia across the world. This could help in providing support and care services that match their experience, needs, preferences; and in designing well informed awareness campaigns based on their voice.