Search

Hair segment analysis is a valuable tool for the assessment of cumulative long-term steroid secretion. Preliminary findings suggest comparable cortisol concentrations in hair collected by instructed laypersons and research staff. However, it remains unclear whether hair sample quality and hair steroids other than cortisol are affected by level of experience (laypersons vs. research staff), home collection circumstances (instructions, familiarity to participant, performance confidence), and characteristics of the layperson (conscientiousness). Sixty participants (23.6 ± 3.9 years; 43 females) provided hair samples twice: first collected by laypersons (HOME) according to provided instructions (written vs. written/video-based instructions) and second by trained research staff (LAB) on the same day or the day after the HOME collection. Hair steroid concentrations (cortisol, cortisone, DHEA, progesterone) were determined using LC–MS/MS. Hair sample quality was evaluated using nine predefined criteria. Laypersons completed questionnaires for the assessment of potential factors of hair outcome measures (hair steroid concentrations, hair sample quality). Hair steroids from HOME and LAB samples were positively correlated (rs between 0.76 and 0.89) and did not significantly differ, with the exception of cortisone. The quality of hair samples was significantly higher for LAB than for HOME samples. Neither HOME collection circumstances nor layperson-related characteristics had an impact on hair outcome measures. However, a low self-reported performance confidence predicted a high absolute difference between HOME and LAB DHEA. In summary, our findings suggest higher quality of hair samples collected by trained research staff compared to instructed laypersons. However, these differences might be negligible, considering the high correlation between HOME and LAB hair steroid concentrations, with the characteristics of the layperson or collection circumstances having a minor impact on hair steroids and hair sample quality. These findings provide further support for the notion that well-instructed laypersons can be enabled to collect hair samples. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00702-021-02367-3.

Objectives To investigate the affective, social, behavioral, and physiological effects of the companion robot Paro for people with dementia in both a day care center and a home setting. Design A pilot block randomized controlled trial over 12 weeks. Participants were randomized to the intervention (Paro) or control condition (standard care). Setting Two dementia day care centers and participants’ homes in Auckland, New Zealand. Participants Thirty dyads (consisting of a care recipient with dementia and their caregiver) took part in this study. All care recipients attended dementia day care centers at Selwyn Foundation and had a formal diagnosis of dementia. Intervention Thirty-minute unstructured group sessions with Paro at the day care center were run 2 to 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Participants also had Paro at home for 6 weeks. Measurements At the day care centers, observations of the care recipients’ behavior, affect, and social responses were recorded using a time sampling method. Observations of interactions with Paro for participants in the intervention were also recorded. Blood pressure and salivary cortisol were collected from care recipients before and after sessions at day care. In the home setting, level of cognition, depressive symptoms, neuropsychiatric symptoms, behavioral agitation, and blood pressure were measured at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. Hair cortisol measures were collected at baseline and at 6 weeks. Results Observations showed that Paro significantly improved facial expressions (affect) and communication with staff (social interaction) at the day care centers. Subanalyses showed that care recipients with less cognitive impairment responded significantly better to Paro. There were no significant differences in care recipient dementia symptoms, nor physiological measures between the intervention and control group. Conclusion Paro shows promise in enhancing affective and social outcomes for certain individuals with dementia in a community context. Larger randomized controlled trials in community settings, with longer time frames, are needed to further specify the contexts and characteristics for which Paro is most beneficial.