Search

Background The involvement of people with a diagnosis of dementia in patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in research is an emerging field in the delivery of studies. Researchers need to understand and use the learning derived from various projects so that this growing body of knowledge can be applied in future research. Objective To embed PPIE throughout a randomised controlled trial of a psychosocial intervention called Journeying through Dementia. We identify and discuss the approaches to involvement that worked well and those where improvements were indicated. Design The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Short Form (GRIPP2-SF) is used to describe and critically appraise the approaches taken and the impact of PPIE involvement upon study processes, the study team and those people with dementia and their supporters who acted as advisors. Findings The involvement of people with a diagnosis of dementia and supporters as study advisors improved the accessibility and relevance of the research for people living with dementia. It also highlighted issues that researchers may have otherwise overlooked. Successful engagement of people with dementia and their supporters in the study was associated with staff skills and particularly use of techniques to scaffold meaningful involvement, as well as participants’ memory and cognitive capacity. However, embedding robust and meaningful involvement processes required significant time and resources. Discussion We propose that certain research processes need to be adapted to be accessible and appropriate for people living with dementia. Recruitment of PPIE advisors needs to reflect population diversity. There also needs to be greater parity of voice between people with lived experience of dementia and researchers. These steps will increase the impact of PPIE in research and improve the experience for those who volunteer to be PPIE advisors.

Many people living with dementia choose to remain in their own homes, supported by home-care workers, who provide care that is specified in care plans. We explored how care plans of clients living with dementia, compared with ethnographic observations of home care they received. In a secondary, reflexive thematic analysis, we reviewed care plans for 17 clients living with dementia and transcripts from 100 h of observations with 16 home-care workers delivering care to them. Our overarching theme was: Care plans as a starting point but incomplete repository. Clients' care plans provided useful background information but did not reflect a wealth of knowledge home-care workers built through practice. Two sub-themes described: (a) Person-centred care planning: whether and how the care plan supported tailoring of care to clients' needs and (b) Filling in the gaps: home-care workers often worked beyond the scope of vague, incomplete or out-of-date care plans. We found considerable inconsistencies between care plans and the care that was delivered. Care plans that were comprehensive about care needs, and rich in person-specific information aided the delivery of person-centred care. Lack of documentation was sometimes associated with observed failures in person-centred care, as helpful information and strategies were not shared. Including information in care plans about how, as well as what care tasks, should be completed, and frequently discussing and updating care plans can create more person-centred plans that reflect changing needs. Electronic care planning systems may support this.

Background Homecare workers carry out complex work with people living with dementia, while under-supported, undervalued and undertrained. In this ethnographic study, we explore the skills, training and support needs of homecare workers supporting people living with dementia. Research Design and Methods We conducted 82 interviews with people living with dementia ( n = 11), family caregivers ( n = 22), homecare staff ( n = 30) and health and social care professionals ( n = 19) and conducted 100-hours of participant observations with homecare workers ( n = 16). We triangulated interview and observational findings and analysed data thematically. Results We developed four themes: 1) ‘Navigating the homecare identity and role’: describing challenges of moving between different role identities and managing associated expectations, 2) ‘Developing and utilising relational and emotional skills’: boundaries between caring and getting emotionally involved felt blurred and difficult to manage, 3) ‘Managing clients who resist care’: homecare workers experienced clients’ reactions as challenging and felt “thrown to the wolves” without sufficient training, and 4) ‘Drawing on agency and team support’: homecare work could be isolating, with no shared workplace, busy schedules and limited opportunity for peer support. Discussion and Implications It is important that training and support for homecare workers addresses the relational, emotional and rights-based aspects of the role. Where a flexible, responsive, person-centred service is required, corresponding training and support is needed, alongside organisational practices, taking account of the broader context of the homecare sector.

Background Understanding intervention delivery as intended, particularly in complex interventions, should be underpinned by good quality fidelity assessment. We present the findings from a fidelity assessment embedded as part of a trial of a complex community-based psychosocial intervention, Journeying through Dementia (JtD). The intervention was designed to equip individuals with the knowledge and skills to successfully self-manage, maintain independence, and live well with dementia and involves both group and individual sessions. The methodological challenges of developing a conceptual framework for fidelity assessment and creating and applying purposely designed measures derived from this framework are discussed to inform future studies. Methods A conceptual fidelity framework was created out of core components of the intervention (including the intervention manual and training for delivery), associated trial protocols and pre-defined fidelity standards and criteria against which intervention delivery and receipt could be measured. Fidelity data collection tools were designed and piloted for reliability and usability. Data collection in four selected sites (fidelity sites) was via non-participatory observations of the group aspect of the intervention, attendance registers and interventionist (facilitator and supervisor) self-report. Results Interventionists from all four fidelity sites attended intervention training. The majority of group participants at the four sites (71%) received the therapeutic dose of 10 out of 16 sessions. Weekly group meeting attendance (including at ‘out of venue’ sessions) was excellent at 80%. Additionally, all but one individual session was attended by the participants who completed the intervention. It proved feasible to create tools derived from the fidelity framework to assess in-venue group aspects of this complex intervention. Results of fidelity assessment of the observed groups were good with substantial inter-rater reliability between researchers KAPPA 0.68 95% CI (0.58–0.78). Self-report by interventionists concurred with researcher assessments. Conclusions There was good fidelity to training and delivery of the group aspect of the intervention at four sites. However, the methodological challenges of assessing all aspects of this complex intervention could not be overcome due to practicalities, assessment methods and ethical considerations. Questions remain regarding how we can assess fidelity in community-based complex interventions without impacting upon intervention or trial delivery. Trial registration ISRCTN17993825.

The aim of this ethnographic study was to investigate how homecare workers support or inhibit independence in people living with dementia.We undertook 100 h of participant observations with homecare workers (n = 16) supporting people living with dementia (n = 17); and 82 qualitative interviews with people living with dementia (n = 11), family carers (n = 22), homecare managers and support staff (n = 11), homecare workers (n = 19) and health and social care professionals (n = 19). We triangulated data and analysed findings thematically.We developed three themes: (1) independence and the home environment, highlighting ongoing negotiations between familiarity, suitability and safety for care; (2) independence and identity, exploring how homecare workers' understanding of their clients' identity can enable active participation in tasks and meaningful choices; and (3) independence and empowerment, considering the important position of homecare workers to advocate for clients living with dementia while navigating authoritative power amongst proxy decision-makers.We consider that person-centred care should also be home-centred, respecting the client's home as an extension of self. Homecare workers can use their understanding of clients' identities, alongside skills in providing choice and developing relationships of interdependence to engage clients in everyday tasks. Homecare workers are well placed to advocate for their client's voice within the care network, although their ability to do so is limited by their position within power structures.

Purpose To build an evidence-informed theoretical model describing how to support people with dementia to live well or for longer at home. Methods We searched electronic databases to August 2018 for papers meeting predetermined inclusion criteria in two reviews that informed our model. We scoped literature for theoretical models of how to enable people with dementia to live at home independently, with good life quality or for longer. We systematically reviewed Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting psychosocial intervention effects on time lived with dementia at home. Two researchers independently rated risk of bias. We developed our theoretical model through discussions with experts by personal, clinical and academic experiences, informed by this evidence base. Results Our scoping review included 52 studies. We divided models identified into: values and approaches (relational and recovery models; optimising environment and activities; family carer skills and support); care strategies (family carer-focused; needs and goal-based; self-management); and service models (case management; integrated; consumer-directed). The 11 RCTs included in our systematic review, all judged at low risk of bias, described only two interventions that increased time people with dementia lived in their own homes. These collectively encompassed all these components except for consumer-directed and integrated care. We developed and revised our model, using review evidence and expert consultation to define the final model. Conclusions Our theoretical model describes values, care strategies and service models that can be used in the design of interventions to enable people with dementia to live well and for longer at home. Trial registration PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099693 (scoping review). PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099200 (RCT systematic review).

The home-care workforce is in high demand globally. Home-care workers provide care for people at home, including practical and personal care, as well as other tasks such as medication management. We conducted a systematic review with the aims of understanding methods of observation that have been employed to study home care and to explore how these methods have enabled researchers to understand the quality of home care. We searched the literature using PubMed and CINAHL databases in May 2018, with no limits applied to date of publication. We searched for MeSH terms of 'Home Care Services', 'Home Health Care', 'Home Nursing' and 'Observation*'. Across 15 eligible studies, the types of observation methods employed were categorised as structured, guided and unstructured. The characteristics of these methods, such as the level of participation adopted by the observer, varied across the studies. Three themes were developed through a narrative synthesis of the included studies' findings: 'The impact of care delivery and organisational factors', 'Observing relationships and communications', and 'People and places behind closed doors'. We conclude that methods of observation are a fairly novel, yet rich and meaningful way of exploring home-care practice. Researchers undertaking observations should consider elements such as the number of researchers observing and the potential for variations, how and when to record the observations, possible triangulation of data, the researcher's reflective stance as an observer, as well as ethical considerations.

Objective: Slowing functional decline could enable people living with dementia to live for longer and more independently in their own homes. We aimed to update previous syntheses examining the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions in reducing functional decline (activities of daily living, activity‐specific physical functioning, or function‐specific goal attainment) in people living in their own homes with dementia. Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases from January 2012 to May 2018; two researchers independently rated risk of bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fitting predetermined inclusion criteria using a checklist; we narratively synthesised findings, prioritising studies judged to have a lower risk of bias. Results: Twenty‐nine papers (describing 26 RCTs) met eligibility criteria, of which we judged 13 RCTs to have a lower risk of bias. Study interventions were evaluated in four groups: physical exercise, occupational, multicomponent, and cognition‐oriented interventions. Four out of 13 RCTs reported functional ability as a primary outcome. In studies judged to have a lower risk of bias, in‐home tailored exercise, individualised cognitive rehabilitation, and in‐home activities‐focussed occupational therapy significantly reduced functional decline relative to control groups in individual studies. There was consistent evidence from studies at low risk of bias that group‐based exercise and reminiscence therapies were ineffective at reducing functional decline. Conclusion: We found no replicated evidence of intervention effectiveness in decreasing functional decline. Interventions associated with slower functional decline in individual trials have been individually delivered and tailored to the needs of the person with dementia. This is consistent with previous findings. Future intervention trials should prioritise these approaches.

BackgroundPerinatal depression is well recognised as a mental health condition but ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to identify perinatal depression.DesignA prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study, with concurrent qualitative and economic evaluations.SettingMaternity services in England.ParticipantsA total of 391 pregnant women.Main outcome measuresWomen completed the Whooley questions, EPDS and a diagnostic reference standard (Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised) during pregnancy (20 weeks) and postnatally (3–4 months). Qualitative interviews were conducted with health professionals (HPs) and a subsample of women.ResultsDiagnostic accuracy results: depression prevalence rates were 10.3% during pregnancy and 10.5% postnatally. The Whooley questions and EPDS (cut-off point of ≥ 10) performed reasonably well, with comparable sensitivity [pregnancy: Whooley questions 85.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.2% to 94.3%; EPDS 82.5%, 95% CI 67.2% to 92.7%; postnatally: Whooley questions 85.7%, 95% CI 69.7% to 95.2%; EPDS 82.9%, 95% CI 66.4% to 93.4%] and specificity (pregnancy: Whooley questions 83.7%, 95% CI 79.4% to 87.4%; EPDS 86.6%, 95% CI 82.5% to 90.0%; postnatally: Whooley questions 80.6%, 95% CI 75.7% to 84.9%; EPDS 87.6%, 95% CI 83.3% to 91.1%). Diagnostic accuracy of the EPDS (cut-off point of ≥ 13) was poor at both time points (pregnancy: sensitivity 45%, 95% CI 29.3% to 61.5%, and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 93.0% to 97.6%; postnatally: sensitivity 62.9%, 95% CI 44.9% to 78.5%, and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 92.7% to 97.7%).Qualitative evaluation: women and HPs were supportive of screening/case-finding for perinatal depression. The EPDS was preferred to the Whooley questions by women and HPs, mainly because of its ‘softer’ wording. Whooley question 1 was thought to be less acceptable, largely because of the terms ‘depressed’ and ‘hopeless’, leading to women not revealing their depressive symptoms. HPs identified a ‘patient-centred’ environment that focused on the mother and baby to promote discussion about mental health.Cost-effectiveness results: screening/case-finding using the Whooley questions or the EPDS alone was not the most cost-effective strategy. A two-stage strategy, ‘Whooley questions followed by the Patient Health Questionnaire’ (a measure assessing depression symptomatology), was the most cost-effective strategy in the range between £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in both the prenatal and postnatal decision models.LimitationsPerinatal depression diagnosis was not cross-referenced with women’s medical records so the proportion of new cases identified is unknown. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening/case-finding strategies was not assessed as part of a randomised controlled trial.ConclusionsThe Whooley questions and EPDS had acceptable sensitivity and specificity, but their use in practice might be limited by low predictive value and variation in their acceptability. A two-stage strategy was more cost-effective than single-stage strategies. Neither case-finding instrument met National Screening Committee criteria.Future workThe yield of screening/case-finding should be established with reference to health-care records. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening/case-finding for perinatal depression needs to be tested in a randomised controlled trial.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

BackgroundDepression in older adults is common and is associated with poor quality of life, increased morbidity and early mortality, and increased health and social care use. Collaborative care, a low-intensity intervention for depression that is shown to be effective in working-age adults, has not yet been evaluated in older people with depression who are managed in UK primary care. The CollAborative care for Screen-Positive EldeRs (CASPER) plus trial fills the evidence gap identified by the most recent guidelines on depression management.ObjectivesTo establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with major depressive disorder in primary care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, two-arm, parallel, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study. Participants were automatically randomised by computer, by the York Trials Unit Randomisation Service, on a 1 : 1 basis using simple unstratified randomisation after informed consent and baseline measures were collected. Blinding was not possible.SettingSixty-nine general practices in the north of England.ParticipantsA total of 485 participants aged ≥ 65 years with major depressive disorder.InterventionsA low-intensity intervention of collaborative care, including behavioural activation, delivered by a case manager for an average of six sessions over 7–8 weeks, alongside usual general practitioner (GP) care. The control arm received only usual GP care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items score at 4 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures included depression severity and caseness at 12 and 18 months, the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items, Patient Health Questionnaire-15 items, Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 items, Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale-2 items, a medication questionnaire, objective data and adverse events. Participants were followed up at 12 and 18 months.ResultsIn total, 485 participants were randomised (collaborative care,n = 249; usual care,n = 236), with 390 participants (80%: collaborative care, 75%; usual care, 86%) followed up at 4 months, 358 participants (74%: collaborative care, 70%; usual care, 78%) followed up at 12 months and 344 participants (71%: collaborative care, 67%; usual care, 75%) followed up at 18 months. A total of 415 participants were included in primary analysis (collaborative care,n = 198; usual care,n = 217), which revealed a statistically significant effect in favour of collaborative care at the primary end point at 4 months [8.98 vs. 10.90 score points, mean difference 1.92 score points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.99 score points;p < 0.001], equivalent to a standard effect size of 0.34. However, treatment differences were not maintained in the longer term (at 12 months: 0.19 score points, 95% CI –0.92 to 1.29 score points;p = 0.741; at 18 months: p = 0.997). The study recorded details of all serious adverse events (SAEs), which consisted of ‘unscheduled hospitalisation’, ‘other medically important condition’ and ‘death’. No SAEs were related to the intervention. Collaborative care showed a small but non-significant increase in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 18-month period, with a higher cost. Overall, the mean cost per incremental QALY for collaborative care compared with usual care was £26,016; however, for participants attending six or more sessions, collaborative care appears to represent better value for money (£9876/QALY).LimitationsStudy limitations are identified at different stages: design (blinding unfeasible, potential contamination), process (relatively low overall consent rate, differential attrition/retention rates) and analysis (no baseline health-care resource cost or secondary/social care data).ConclusionCollaborative care was effective for older people with case-level depression across a range of outcomes in the short term though the reduction in depression severity was not maintained over the longer term of 12 or 18 months. Participants who received six or more sessions of collaborative care did benefit substantially more than those who received fewer treatment sessions but this difference was not statistically significant.Future work recommendationsRecommendations for future research include investigating the longer-term effect of the intervention. Depression is a recurrent disorder and it would be useful to assess its impact on relapse and the prevention of future case-level depression.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN45842879.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.