Search

There is a push for greater promotion of dementia risk reduction (DRR) by primary care practitioners (PCPs). The aims of this study were to understand the views of non-medically trained Australian contributors in a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) about dementia prevention regarding the role of PCPs in promoting DRR and to consider the implications of those views for developing implementation strategies. Discussion board posts of MOOC enrollees were analysed regarding the actions that organisations, communities and/or governments should take to help people work towards DRR. Of the 1641 eligible contributors to the discussion, 160 (10%) indicated that PCPs had a role in promoting DRR. This subset of participants particularly wanted earlier identification of risk by PCPs and a discussion about DRR. Some participants thought PCPs did not currently prioritise DRR, lacked knowledge about DRR and faced Medicare and resource restrictions to promoting DRR. We suggest that PCPs need: better publicity for their role in promoting DRR; to prioritise DRR; knowledge about DRR; and to take advantage of existing opportunities to promote DRR quickly. The findings of this study should be considered when attempting to implement DRR guidelines in primary care.

ObjectivePandemics negatively impact healthcare workers’ (HCW’s) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW’s mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs’ mental health and well-being during pandemics?DesignA narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies.Data sourcesEvidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched.Eligibility criteriaSubject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors.Results2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW’s mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes.ConclusionHCW interventions were rapidly designed and implemented with few comprehensively described or evaluated. Tailored interventions that respond to HCWs’ needs using experience co-design for mental health and well-being are required with process and outcome evaluation.

Background Mental health policies outline the need for codesign of services and quality improvement in partnership with service users and staff (and sometimes carers), and yet, evidence of systematic implementation and the impacts on healthcare outcomes is limited. Objective The aim of this study was to test whether an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention to improve recovery‐orientation of services led to greater psychosocial recovery outcomes for service users. Design A stepped wedge cluster randomized‐controlled trial was conducted. Setting and Participants Four Mental Health Community Support Services providers, 287 people living with severe mental illnesses, 61 carers and 120 staff were recruited across Victoria, Australia. Main Outcome Measures The 24‐item Revised Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS‐R) measured individual psychosocial recovery. Results A total of 841 observations were completed with 287 service users. The intention‐to‐treat analysis found RAS‐R scores to be similar between the intervention (mean = 84.7, SD= 15.6) and control (mean = 86.5, SD= 15.3) phases; the adjusted estimated difference in the mean RAS‐R score was −1.70 (95% confidence interval: −3.81 to 0.40; p = .11). Discussion This first trial of an adapted mental health experience codesign intervention for psychosocial recovery outcomes found no difference between the intervention and control arms. Conclusions More attention to the conditions that are required for eight essential mechanisms of change to support codesign processes and implementation is needed. Patient and Public Involvement The State consumer (Victorian Mental Illness Awareness Council) and carer peak bodies (Tandem representing mental health carers) codeveloped the intervention. The adapted intervention was facilitated by coinvestigators with lived‐experiences who were coauthors for the trial and process evaluation protocols, the engagement model and explanatory model of change for the trial.

Background: Primary care practitioners are being called upon to work with their patients to reduce dementia risk. However, it is unclear who should do what with whom, when, and under what circumstances. Objective: This scoping review aimed to identify clinical guidelines for dementia risk reduction (DRR) in primary care settings, synthesize the guidelines into actionable behaviors, and appraise the guidelines for specificity. Methods: Terms related to “dementia”, “guidelines”, and “risk reduction” were entered into two academic databases and two web search engines. Guidelines were included if they referred specifically to clinical practices for healthcare professionals for primary prevention of dementia. Included guidelines were analyzed using a directed content analysis method, underpinned by the Action-Actor-Context-Target-Time framework for specifying behavior. Results: Eighteen guidelines were included in the analysis. Together, the guidelines recommended six distinct clusters of actions for DRR. These were to 1) invite patients to discuss DRR, 2) identify patients with risk factors for dementia, 3) discuss DRR, 4) manage dementia risk factors, 5) signpost to additional support, and 6) follow up. Guidelines recommended various actors, contexts, targets, and times for performing these actions. Together, guidelines lacked specificity and were at times contradictory. Conclusion: Currently available guidelines allow various approaches to promoting DRR in primary care. Primary care teams are advised to draw on the results of the review to decide which actions to undertake and the locally appropriate actors, contexts, targets, and times for these actions. Documenting these decisions in more specific, local guidelines for promoting DRR should facilitate implementation.

BackgroundMental health treatment rates are increasing, but the burden of disease has not reduced. Tools to support efficient resource distribution are required.AimTo investigate whether a person-centred e-health (Target-D) platform matching depression care to symptom severity prognosis can improve depressive symptoms relative to usual care.Design and settingStratified individually randomised controlled trial in 14 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from April 2016 to February 2019. In total, 1868 participants aged 18–65 years who had current depressive symptoms; internet access; no recent change to antidepressant; no current antipsychotic medication; and no current psychological therapy were randomised (1:1) via computer-generated allocation to intervention or usual care.MethodThe intervention was an e-health platform accessed in the GP waiting room, comprising symptom feedback, priority-setting, and prognosis-matched management options (online self-help, online guided psychological therapy, or nurse-led collaborative care). Management options were flexible, neither participants nor staff were blinded, and there were no substantive protocol deviations. The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]) at 3 months.ResultsIn intention to treat analysis, estimated between- arm difference in mean PHQ-9 scores at 3 months was −0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.45 to −0.31) favouring the intervention, and −0.59 at 12 months (95% CI = −1.18 to 0.01); standardised effect sizes of −0.16 (95% CI = −0.26 to −0.05) and −0.10 (95% CI = −0.21 to 0.002), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionMatching management to prognosis using a person-centred e-health platform improves depressive symptoms at 3 months compared to usual care and could feasibly be implemented at scale. Scope exists to enhance the uptake of management options.

This article is a response to Oliver et al.’s Commentary ‘The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?’ recently published in Health Research Policy and Systems (2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad practice as an inherent flaw, or indeed ‘dark side’, of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of contextual factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary’s limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term ‘co-production’ more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as ‘cobiquity’ – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of ‘co’ words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term ‘co-production’. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to ‘the problem’ of ‘co-production’ seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia’s failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.

PROBLEM: Adolescent inpatient units have been studied regarding their effectiveness, yet little is known about the experiences of young people who are admitted and their caregivers. It is important to address this gap to understand adolescent inpatient models of care and therapeutic outcomes to maximize the benefit. Our aim was to explore adolescent and caregivers' experiences of an inpatient model of care (MoC) and perceived helpfulness. METHODS: A longitudinal prospective qualitative design was utilized. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 adolescents and 12 caregivers at T1 (admission), T2 (discharge), and T3 (6 months postdischarge). Data were analysed first thematically and then using trajectory analysis. Themes from the three time-points are presented from the combined perspectives of adolescents and caregivers. FINDINGS: Experiences described followed a recovery narrative consisting of three key phases which included, "waiting for help" (T1), "help arrived" (T2), and having "returned to regular life" (T3). The overarching trajectory theme was a "winding road to recovery." CONCLUSION: Findings provide insights into the lived experiences from adolescents who have had an inpatient stay and their caregivers of an adolescent-specific inpatient MoC. These findings can help conceptualize quality adolescent models of care for young people and their families.

IntroductionAphasia is an impairment of language that occurs in 30%–40% of stroke survivors. This often chronic condition results in poor outcomes for the individual with aphasia and their family. Long-term aphasia management is limited, with few people receiving sufficient services by 6–12 months postonset. We present a protocol for the development of coproduced aphasia service elements. We will use experience-based codesign (EBCD), an approach that enables service users and providers to collaboratively develop services and care pathways. Drawing on the experiences of people with aphasia, their families and clinicians we will establish priorities for the development of new services and later work together to codesign them.Methods and analysisThis research will be coproduced with people with aphasia (n=30–60), their families (n=30–60) and speech pathologists (n=30–60) in Queensland, Australia, using EBCD. A consumer advisory committee will provide oversight and advice throughout the research. In phase 1, we will use semistructured interviews and the nominal group technique to explore experiences and unmet needs in aphasia rehabilitation. Data will be analysed using thematic analysis and the resulting themes will be prioritised in multistakeholder focus groups. Outcomes of phase 1 will inform future research (phase 2) to codesign services. Financial costs and participant experiences of EBCD will be measured.Ethics and disseminationHuman Research Ethics Committee approval for phase 1 has been obtained (HREC/2020/QRBW/61368). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journal articles, presented at relevant conferences and, following EBCD suggested best practice, fed back to participants and community members at a celebratory event at completion of the project. The inclusion of service users in all stages of research will facilitate an integrated approach to knowledge translation. A summary of research findings will be made available to participating sites.

BACKGROUND: Subthreshold depression is common in primary care, but there is little information about the self-help strategies that patients use and the perceived benefits of these. AIM: This study sought to elicit the self-help strategies that primary care attendees identified as beneficial for the self-management of subthreshold depressive symptoms and the implications for general practitioners. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 14 people (April-May 2017) from the Target-D randomised controlled trial (RCT). Target-D investigated whether using a patient-centred clinical prediction tool and an e-health platform to match mental health management options to prognosis was beneficial for improving depressive symptoms at 3 months compared to usual care. Interviews were thematically analysed to identify self-help strategies and their perceived benefits. RESULTS: Four overarching domains for the self-management strategies were identified: social, cognitive, behavioural and restorative. Interviewees reported using strategies across multiple domains, which included undertaking enjoyable, immersive activities, that provided relief from automatic negative thoughts and had a perceived cognitive benefit. Differences in the perceived sense of agency were noted around the self-regulation of mood, which indicated more explicit direction to patient-identified self-help management strategies by general practitioners for some may be of benefit in routine care. CONCLUSION: Some of the reported self-management strategies aligned with evidence-based approaches such as physical activity and mindfulness for mental health symptom management. These findings can inform low-intensity interventions within stepped care models for mental health in primary care, social prescribing models and, help to guide the management of patients by GPs for subthreshold depression.

Background This paper reports on the cost-effectiveness evaluation of Link-me – a digitally supported, systematic approach to triaging care for depression and anxiety in primary care that uses a patient-completed Decision Support Tool (DST). Methods The economic evaluation was conducted alongside a parallel, stratified individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing prognosis-matched care to usual care at six- and 12-month follow-up. Twenty-three general practices in three Australian Primary Health Networks recruited 1,671 adults (aged 18 – 75 years), predicted by the DST to have minimal/mild or severe depressive or anxiety symptoms in three months. The minimal/mild prognostic group was referred to low intensity services. Participants screened in the severe prognostic group were offered high intensity care navigation, a model of care coordination. The outcome measures included in this evaluation were health sector costs (including development and delivery of the DST, care navigation and other healthcare services used) and societal costs (health sector costs plus lost productivity), psychological distress [Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)] and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EuroQol 5-dimension quality of life questionnaire with Australian general population preference weights applied. Costs were valued in 2018–19 Australian dollars (A$). Results Across all participants, the health sector incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Link-me per point decrease in K10 at six months was estimated at $1,082 (95% CI $391 to $6,204) increasing to $2,371 (95% CI $191 to Dominated) at 12 months. From a societal perspective, the ICER was estimated at $1,257/K10 point decrease (95% CI Dominant to Dominated) at six months, decreasing to $1,217 (95% CI Dominant to Dominated) at 12 months. No significant differences in QALYs were detected between trial arms and the intervention was dominated (less effective, more costly) based on the cost/QALY ICER. Conclusions The Link-me approach to stepped mental health care would not be considered cost-effective utilising a cost/QALY outcome metric commonly adopted by health technology assessment agencies. Rather, Link-me showed a trend toward cost-effectiveness by providing improvement in mental health symptoms, measured by the K10, at an additional cost. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ANZCTRN 12617001333303.

Background: Codesign has the potential to transform health and other public services. To avoid unintentionally reinforcing existing inequities, better understanding is needed of how to facilitate involvement of vulnerable populations in acceptable, ethical and effective codesign.Objective: To explore citizens’ involvement in codesigning public services for vulnerable groups, identify challenges and suggest improvements.Design: A modified case study approach. Pattern matching was used to compare reported challenges with a priori theoretical propositions.Setting and participants: A two‐day international symposium involved 28 practitioners, academics and service users from seven countries to reflect on challenges and to codesign improved processes for involving vulnerable populations.Intervention studied: Eight case studies working with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations in three countries.Results: We identified five shared challenges to meaningful, sustained participation of vulnerable populations: engagement; power differentials; health concerns; funding; and other economic/social circumstances. In response, a focus on relationships and flexibility is essential. We encourage codesign projects to enact a set of principles or heuristics rather than following pre‐specified steps. We identify a set of principles and tactics, relating to challenges outlined in our case studies, which may help in codesigning public services with vulnerable populations.Discussion and conclusions: Codesign facilitators must consider how meaningful engagement will be achieved and how power differentials will be managed when working with services for vulnerable populations. The need for flexibility and responsiveness to service user needs may challenge expectations about timelines and outcomes. User‐centred evaluations of codesigned public services are needed.

Primary care in Australia is undergoing significant reform, with a particular focus on cost-effective tailoring of mental health care to individual needs. Link-me is testing whether a patient-completed Decision Support Tool (DST), which predicts future severity of depression and anxiety symptoms and triages individuals into care accordingly, is clinically effective and cost-effective relative to usual care. The trial is set in general practices, with English-speaking patients invited to complete eligibility screening in their general practitioner's waiting room. Eligible and consenting patients will then complete the DST assessment and are randomised and stratified according to predicted symptom severity. Participants allocated to the intervention arm will receive feedback on DST responses, select treatment priorities, assess motivation to change, and receive a severity-matched treatment recommendation (information about and links to low intensity services for those with mild symptoms, or assistance from a specially trained health professional (care navigator) for those with severe symptoms). All patients allocated to the comparison arm will receive usual GP care plus attention control. Primary (psychological distress) and secondary (depression, anxiety, quality of life, days out of role) outcomes will be assessed at 6 and 12 months. Differences in outcome means between trial arms both across and within symptom severity group will be examined using intention-to-treat analyses. Within trial and modelled economic evaluations will be conducted to determine the value for money of credentials of Link-me. Findings will be reported to the Federal Government to inform how mental health services across Australia are funded and delivered in the future.

Limited research exists regarding the therapeutic operations of adolescent mental health inpatient units, particularly in terms of nonpharmacological therapeutic interventions. This review collates what is known about reported nonpharmacological therapeutic interventions for young people admitted to general or non-disorder-specific adolescent mental health inpatient settings. A descriptive review of this nature was not located in the literature. The aim was to identify what is currently known about reported nonpharmacological therapeutic interventions. The purpose was to consider gaps and contribute to further work being undertaken in describing an exemplary inpatient model of care for adolescents. Sources included CINAHL, MEDLINE, ERIC, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Studies included were those published in English, between the years 2000 and 2018. Exclusions included residential, community, outpatient, forensic settings, and studies detailing pharmacological interventions. Ten studies were identified. This descriptive review provides an objective foundation to inform an exemplary inpatient model of care currently being investigated. There is a critical need to understand these interventions to identify key components of an inpatient model of care. Such knowledge will provide guidance for future services seeking to create an exemplary model of care. Furthermore, these results can influence current practice by improving quality and delivery of inpatient care.

Background People living with psychosis, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, major depressive disorders and other delusional disorders, collectively termed ‘severe mental illness’ (SMI), are at increased risk of dying prematurely from cardiovascular disease (CVD). The risk factors associated with this reduced life expectancy are largely modifiable. Objective The aim of this paper is to provide summative evidence of some of the known effective interventions that may reduce cardiovascular risk in people living with SMI. Discussion Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are available and can be used in primary care for CVD risk reduction in people with SMI. Trials of pharmacological interventions for weight gain and smoking have shown good effects. Combined pharmacological and lifestyle interventions could support management of other risk factors, but tailored support and engagement strategies are needed. Specific guidance for CVD risk reduction in people with SMI is absent, but evidence indicates that following guidelines for the general population is warranted.

Physical activity is increasingly positioned as playing an important role in preventing and mitigating many of the decrements associated with biological ageing. As a result, public health messages encourage older people to remain active in later life. Despite this, physical activity participation rates among older adults are low. This may be in part related to the conventional approach to understanding physical activity participation as a product of motivation. We contend that this approach does not allow for a deeper exploration of the wider structural, historical and discursive contexts in which physical activity participation occurs. Therefore, we propose that physical activity can be reconceptualised as a career. Through a synthesis of findings from four studies exploring physical activity experiences in later life, we demonstrate that beginning and maintaining a physical activity career requires a disposition towards physical activity, the legitimation of physically active practices and dealing with contingencies. In addition, we demonstrate that maintaining a physical activity career requires investment and deliberation to adapt physical activity practices continually within an individual's own personal biography. As such, we conclude that current strategies to promote physical activity to older adults are unlikely to result in increased levels of participation. To promote physical activity to older adults an understanding of how structural, cultural and historical contexts influence participation is needed.

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health care workers’ mental health and well-being for the successful function of the health care system. Few targeted digital tools exist to support the mental health of hospital-based health care workers, and none of them appear to have been led and co-designed by health care workers. OBJECTIVE RMHive is being led and developed by health care workers using experience-based co-design (EBCD) processes as a mobile app to support the mental health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to health care workers. We present a protocol for the impact evaluation for the rapid design and delivery of the RMHive mobile app. METHODS The impact evaluation will adopt a mixed methods design. Qualitative data from photo interviews undertaken with up to 30 health care workers and semistructured interviews conducted with up to 30 governance stakeholders will be integrated with qualitative and quantitative user analytics data and user-generated demographic and mental health data entered into the app. Analyses will address three evaluation questions related to engagement with the mobile app, implementation and integration of the app, and the impact of the app on individual mental health outcomes. The design and development will be described using the Mobile Health Evidence Reporting and Assessment guidelines. Implementation of the app will be evaluated using normalization process theory to analyze qualitative data from interviews combined with text and video analysis from the semistructured interviews. Mental health impacts will be assessed using the total score of the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4) and subscale scores for the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Scale for anxiety. The PHQ4 will be completed at baseline and at 14 and 28 days. RESULTS The anticipated average use period of the app is 30 days. The rapid design will occur over four months using EBCD to collect qualitative data and develop app content. The impact evaluation will monitor outcome data for up to 12 weeks following hospital-wide release of the minimal viable product release. The study received funding and ethics approvals in June 2020. Outcome data is expected to be available in March 2021, and the impact evaluation is expected to be published mid-2021. CONCLUSIONS The impact evaluation will examine the rapid design, development, and implementation of the RMHive app and its impact on mental health outcomes for health care workers. Findings from the impact evaluation will provide guidance for the integration of EBCD in rapid design and implementation processes. The evaluation will also inform future development and rollout of the app to support the mental health needs of hospital-based health care workers more widely. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/26168

Young women who experience intimate partner violence (IPV) are most likely to turn to their friends for help. Although friends can play a critical role in providing support, there is little research that examines friends’ experiences. In this qualitative study, we explored how friends of young women experiencing IPV perceived their role in responding to IPV in the context of friendship. We held in-depth interviews with 15 friends of young women who had experienced IPV and used reflexive thematic analysis to develop key themes from the data. We developed two overarching themes that reflected participants’ perceptions of the roles they had played or considered as a friend in responding to IPV: “taking action” (which included “providing an outsider’s view,” “being an advisor or coach,” “being a protector,” and “taking a stand”); and “being there” (which included “being a listener,” “being a companion” and “being an ally”). Their perceptions were shaped by friendship expectations, as well as by understandings of IPV. However, deciding what role to play in supporting their friend was constructed as challenging due to conflicting expectations that arose in the context of friendship. It involved balancing a perceived responsibility to do what they thought was best for their friend’s well-being, a need to promote honesty and mutuality in the friendship, along with a competing obligation to respect their friend’s choices, maintain her trust and ensure equality in the friendship. Being friends with the abuser as well as with the victim created additional complexities. Based on our findings, we identify key areas to address in developing interventions to assist friends to respond to young women experiencing IPV. These could guide friends on how to play an effective support role while also maintaining the friendship and managing the significant emotional impacts of providing help.

Summary Background The volume and heterogeneity of mental health problems that primary care patients present with is a substantial challenge for health systems, and both undertreatment and overtreatment are common. We developed Link-me, a patient-completed Decision Support Tool, to predict severity of depression or anxiety, identify priorities, and recommend interventions. In this study, we aimed to examine if Link-me reduces psychological distress among individuals predicted to have minimal/mild or severe symptoms of anxiety or depression. Methods In this pragmatic stratified randomised controlled trial, adults aged 18–75 years reporting depressive or anxiety symptoms or use of mental health medication were recruited from 23 general practices in Australia. Participants completed the Decision Support Tool and were classified into three prognostic groups (minimal/mild, moderate, severe), and those in the minimal/mild and severe groups were eligible for inclusion. Participants were individually and randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either prognosis-matched care (intervention group) or usual care plus attention control (control group). Participants were not blinded but intervention providers were only notified of those allocated to the intervention group. Outcome assessment was blinded. The primary outcome was the difference in the change in scores between the intervention and control group, and within prognostic groups, on the 10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale at 6 months post randomisation. The trial was registered on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001333303. Outcomes Between Nov 21, 2017, and Oct 31, 2018, 24 616 patients were invited to complete the eligibility screening survey. 1671 of these patients were included and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=834) or the control group (n=837). Prognosis-matched care was associated with greater reductions in psychological distress than usual care plus attention control at 6 months (p=0·03), with a standardised mean difference (SMD) of −0·09 (95% CI −0·17 to −0·01). This reduction was also seen in the severe prognostic group (p=0·003), with a SMD of −0·26 (−0·43 to −0·09), but not in the minimal/mild group (p=0·73), with a SMD of 0·04 (−0·17 to 0·24). In the complier average causal effect analysis in the severe prognostic group, differences were larger among those who received some or all aspects of the intervention (SMD range −0·58 to −1·15). No serious adverse effects were recorded. Interpretation Prognosis-based matching of interventions reduces psychological distress in patients with anxiety or depressive symptoms, particularly in those with severe symptoms, and is associated with better outcomes when patients access the recommended treatment. Optimisation of the Link-me approach and implementation into routine practice could help reduce the burden of disease associated with common mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression. Funding Australian Government Department of Health.

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) accounts for 40% of the excess mortality identified in people with severe mental illness (SMI). Modifiable CVD risk factors are higher and can be exacerbated by the cardiometabolic impact of psychotropic medications. People with SMI frequently attend primary care presenting a valuable opportunity for early identification, prevention and management of cardiovascular health. The ACCT Healthy Hearts Study will test a coproduced, nurse-led intervention delivered with general practitioners to reduce absolute CVD risk (ACVDR) at 12 months compared with an active control group. Methods/design ACCT is a two group (intervention/active control) individually randomised (1:1) controlled trial (RCT). Assessments will be completed baseline (pre-randomisation), 6 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome is 5-year ACVDR measured at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include 6-month ACVDR; and blood pressure, lipids, HbA1c, BMI, quality of life, physical activity, motivation to change health behaviour, medication adherence, alcohol use and hospitalisation at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed-effects regression will estimate mean difference between groups for primary and secondary continuous outcomes. Economic cost-consequences analysis will be conducted using quality of life and health resource use information and routinely collected government health service use and medication data. A parallel process evaluation will investigate implementation of the intervention, uptake and outcomes. Discussion ACCT will deliver a coproduced and person-centred, guideline level cardiovascular primary care intervention to a high need population with SMI. If successful, the intervention could lead to the reduction of the mortality gap and increase opportunities for meaningful social and economic participation. Trial registration ANZCTR Trial number: ACTRN12619001112156.

Mental health services are increasingly encouraged to use co-design methodologies to engage individuals and families affected by mental health problems in service design and improvement. This scoping review aimed to identify research that used co-design methods with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities in mental health services, and to identify methodological considerations for working with this population. In October 2019, we searched five electronic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science) to identify papers published in which people from CALD backgrounds were engaged in the co-design of a mental health service or program. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English in the last 25 years (1993-2019). The search identified nine articles that matched the inclusion criteria. Using a scoping review methodology, the first author charted the data using extraction fields and then used qualitative synthesis methods to identify themes. Data were grouped into themes relevant to the research question. The two key themes relate first, to improving the experience for CALD communities when engaging in co-design research and second, to the development of co-design methods themselves. These findings support the need for further research into the transferability of co-design tools with CALD communities, particularly if co-design is to become a best practice method for service design and improvement. This scoping review identified methodological and practical consideration for researchers looking to use co-design with CALD communities for mental health service design, re-design or quality improvement initiatives. Further research is required to explore experiences of co-design methods, including documented protocols such as experience-based co-design, with CALD communities. This review indicates that explanatory models of mental health, community and co-design impact partnerships with CALD communities, and need to be understood to optimise the quality of these relationships when using co-design methods.

Participation in health care is currently the zeitgeist/spirit of our times. A myriad of practices characterizes this “participatory Zeitgeist” in contemporary health care, which range from patients and professionals collaborating as partners in service delivery and treatment decision-making, to crowdsourced cures and participation in online communities, to using health apps, to involvement in health care quality improvement initiatives for systems redesign using coproduction and co-design methods. To date, patient engagement and participation in online communities and the use of apps have received a good deal of attention in participatory medicine. However, there has been a less critical examination of participation in health care planning, design, delivery, and improvement. In the face of what Thomas Kuhn called a scientific revolution, we are presented with the opportunity to re-examine some of the assumptions underpinning participation in health care and some of the emerging anomalies and weaknesses in the current science. This re-examination will allow the development of a new paradigm, a science of participation. In this science, we can systematically test, refine, and advance participation in health care to build a unifying language and theories from across the interdisciplinary fields of participatory design, medicine, and research to develop and test models to explain impacts and outcomes. A science of participation will allow the emergent and unexplained facts to be addressed in the current participatory mood of health care planning, design, delivery, and improvement.

Dementia is now a global health priority. With no known cure, the best way to reduce the number of people who will be living with dementia is by promoting dementia risk reduction (DRR). However, despite evidence-based guidelines, DRR is not yet routinely promoted in Australian general practice. Previously, we proposed a preliminary conceptual model for implementing DRR in primary care based on our scoping review of practitioners’ views. The present study aimed to refine this model for the Australian context by incorporating the current perspectives of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and general practice nurses (GPNs) about DRR. Interviews with 17 GPs and GPNs were analysed using the framework method, underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We identified 12 barriers to promoting DRR in Australian general practice, along with five facilitators. Using the CFIR–Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Matching Tool to select prioritised implementation strategies from the ERIC project, the findings were incorporated into a refined conceptual model. The refined model points to an implementation intervention that uses educational materials and meetings to reach consensus with GPs and GPNs on the importance of promoting DRR and an appropriate approach. Champion GPs and GPNs should be prepared to drive the agreed implementation forward, and general practices should share successes and lessons learned. This model is a crucial step in bridging the gap between DRR guidelines and routine practice.

Identity and decision-making are interrelated concepts, but the relationship between them is complex particularly when an unwell person’s ability to make decisions is compromised. In this article we discuss how moral self-definition (Nelson, 2001;Walker, 1987) can be used within a Listening Guide (LG) analysis to extend analysis of the temporal relationship between identity and decisions. In this project, the LG was used to analyze interviews exploring older people’s understanding of medical decision-making when the unwell person’s capacity is diminished. The second step of the LG drew attention to the participants’ expression of decision-making voices and health-related identities, but the iterative and temporal relationship between identity and decisions was less well illuminated. Therefore, we applied the theoretical framework of moral self-definition within the third listening. The focus of this article is on how moral self-definition can be integrated as a theoretical framework within the contrapuntal listening to extend the LG analysis.

Depression is complex and it is known that how people name and give meaning to this experience when they are from cross cultural backgrounds differs to that of dominant Anglo cultures. Yet surprisi...

Healthcare systems redesign and service improvement approaches are adopting participatory tools, techniques and mindsets. Participatory methods increasingly used in healthcare improvement coalesce around the concept of coproduction, and related practices of cocreation, codesign and coinnovation. These participatory methods have become the new Zeitgeist—the spirit of our times in quality improvement. The rationale for this new spirit of participation relates to voice and engagement (those with lived experience should be engaged in processes of development, redesign and improvements), empowerment (engagement in codesign and coproduction has positive individual and societal benefits) and advancement (quality of life and other health outcomes and experiences of services for everyone involved should improve as a result). This paper introduces Mental Health Experience Co-design (MH ECO), a peer designed and led adapted form of Experience-based Co-design (EBCD) developed in Australia. MH ECO is said to facilitate empowerment, foster trust, develop autonomy, self-determination and choice for people living with mental illnesses and their carers, including staff at mental health services. Little information exists about the underlying mechanisms of change; the entities, processes and structures that underpin MH ECO and similar EBCD studies. To address this, we identified eight possible mechanisms from an assessment of the activities and outcomes of MH ECO and a review of existing published evaluations. The eight mechanisms, recognition, dialogue, cooperation, accountability, mobilisation, enactment, creativity and attainment, are discussed within an ‘explanatory theoretical model of change’ that details these and ideal relational transitions that might be observed or not with MH ECO or other EBCD studies. We critically appraise the sociocultural and political movement in coproduction and draw on interdisciplinary theories from the humanities—narrative theory, dialogical ethics, cooperative and empowerment theory. The model advances theoretical thinking in coproduction beyond motivations and towards identifying underlying processes and entities that might impact on process and outcome.Trial registration numberThe Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000457640 (results).

Family is often identified as a determinant or correlate of older adults’ physical activity. However, we know little about how family life can influence physical activity beliefs, understandings and practices as we age. Changes in life expectancy have resulted in changes in family life, with an increasing amount of families now living with multiple generations. As a result, families experience an increased number of years of shared lives. This shift in family structure may affect the way we do family, that is, what roles and responsibilities are undertaken as part of family life. Thus, in the last decade there has been an increasing interest in intergenerational relationships within families in the literature. However, in relation to physical activity, research in intergenerational families has focussed on two generational families. In addition, little is known about how intergenerational relationships may influence physical activity beliefs, understandings and practices, particularly from the perspective of older adults. Based on data from five three-generational families from the West of Scotland, results show how the physical activity practices of older people contribute to a family culture of physical activity, thus reinforcing intergenerational links.

BackgroundEvidence for the potential prevention of dementia through lifestyle risk factor modification is growing and has prompted examination of implementation approaches. Understanding the general population’s perspectives regarding dementia risk reduction is key to implementation. This may provide useful insights into more effective and efficient ways to help people change relevant beliefs, motivations and behaviour patterns. We conducted a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence to develop an integrated model of general population dementia risk reduction perspectives and the implications for intervention in research and implementation contexts.Methods and findingsWe searched electronic databases, supplemented by lateral search techniques, to identify studies published since 1995 reporting qualitative dementia risk reduction perspectives of the non-expert general population who do not have dementia. Thematic synthesis, incorporating an expert panel discussion, was used to identify overarching themes and develop an integrated model to guide intervention to support individuals to adopt and maintain dementia risk reduction behaviour patterns. Quality of included studies and confidence in review findings were systematically appraised. We included 50 papers, reflecting the views of more than 4,500 individuals. Main themes were: 1) The need for effective education about a complex topic to prevent confusion and facilitate understanding and empowerment; 2) Personally relevant short- and long-term benefits of dementia risk reduction behaviour patterns can generate value and facilitate action; 3) Individuals benefit from trusted, reliable and sensitive support to convert understanding to personal commitment to relevant behaviour change; 4) Choice, control and relevant self-regulatory supports help individuals take-action and direct their own progress; 5) Collaborative and empowering social opportunities can facilitate and propagate dementia risk reduction behaviour change; 6) Individual behaviour patterns occur in social contexts that influence beliefs through heuristic processes and need to be understood. Findings indicate that, for intervention: 1) education is key, but both content and delivery need to be tailored; 2) complementary interventions to support self-regulation mechanisms and social processes will increase education effectiveness; 3) co-design principles should guide intervention design and delivery processes; 4) all interventions need to be supported by context-specific data.ConclusionsThis systematic review and thematic synthesis provides a comprehensive, integrated model of the dementia risk reduction perspectives of the general population and intervention approaches to support behaviour change that can be applied in clinical trial and real-world implementation settings. Findings extend existing knowledge and may assist more effective intervention design and delivery.

There is limited understanding of which factors most influence take-up of DRR behaviour in the general population. This evidence gap may limit the effectiveness of DRR implementation and, hence, impede translation of increasing evidence for DRR1 into real-world public health benefits.Reviews of quantitative studies have identified poor knowledge and persistence of myths about ageing2,3 as important. However, these findings are limited by the scope of included questionnaires.Qualitative literature reporting the perspectives of the general public offers an opportunity to increase this understanding. Qualitative studies can examine poorly understood phenomena in greater depth and with fewer a priori assumptions. Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is increasingly recognised as valuable, particularly in relation to complex interventions like DRR.We will present a QES regarding the perspectives of dementia- free members of the general public towards DRR. Searches indicate that no QES for this topic currently exists.Systematic searches of Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL for studies published since 1995 that have used qualitative methods to explore DRR perspectives in the general public were undertaken, supplemented by hand searches of included studies’ reference lists. Following independent screening by two reviewers, 41 publications based on 37 individual studies meeting inclusion criteria have been identified.Data will be analysed using thematic synthesis, as outlined by Thomas and Harden (2008)4 and recommended for QES regarding complex health interventions5. ‘Line-by-line’ inductive coding and development of descriptive themes across studies will produce a summary of the perspectives of the general public for DRR. A conceptual framework explaining the relationships between key themes and considering the implications for implementation will be proposed.The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool will be used to appraise included studies. Rather than imposing an arbitrary quality cut-off point for inclusion, sensitivity analyses will be used to examine the influence of lower quality studies on review findings. Finally, the Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews (CERQual) approach will facilitate assessment of confidence in review findings to aid future use. Data extraction is ongoing.Findings from this synthesis will support better targeted quantitative examination of DRR implementation determinants and more strategic intervention design. 1.World Health Organisation. Risk reduction of cognitive decline and dementia: WHO guidelines. World Health Organisation. 2019. Geneva. Licence CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO2.Cahill, S., Pierce, M., Werner, P., Darley, A., Bobersky, A. A systematic review of the public’s knowledge and understanding of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. Alz Dis Assoc Disord. 2015; 29:255-2753.Cations, M., Radisic, G., Crotty, M., Laver, K.E. What does the general public understand about prevention and treatment of dementia? A systematic review of population-based surveys. PLoS One. 2018, 13(4):e01960854.Thomas, J. and Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews, BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2008 July; 8:45. doi 10.1186/1471-2288-8-455.Noyes, J., Booth, A., Cargo, M., et al. (2018). Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series – paper 1: introduction. J of Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 97:35-38

> “Today, the need for people-centered primary health care is greater than at any time in history”[1][1] The challenges facing our health systems are immense. International efforts strive to meet the needs of aging populations, the rising prevalence of chronic disease and illness, and the

Objective: To characterise adolescents admitted to a voluntary adolescent inpatient unit and investigate treatment outcomes. Method: A retrospective cohort design was employed. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) pre- and post-admission scores were collected, measuring global functioning. Demographic variables such as age, gender, primary diagnosis, comorbidity and length of stay (LOS) were analysed. Data were collected from May 2017 to April 2018. All adolescents admitted to the inpatient unit were included. Results: The majority of adolescents ( n = 72; HoNOSCA data available on n = 57) were 16 years of age (26%), female (82%) and with a primary diagnosis of a mood disorder (57%). Most adolescents improved at the time of discharge. Self-injury and emotional symptoms had greater reductions according to clinician and adolescent-self-ratings ( p < 0.01). Mean change (improvement) in HoNOSCA total score was 7.3 (SD 7.5) based on clinician ratings and 7.2 (SD 9.5) for adolescent-self-ratings. The mean LOS was 28 days (SD 15.8). Conclusions: The inpatient unit proved effective at meeting the needs of young people in terms of symptom stabilisation. Further research is needed to describe adolescent inpatient models of care, the operations and philosophies to better examine how these relate to treatment outcomes.

Experience-based co-design (EBCD) is a quality improvement approach that is being used internationally to bring service users and health professionals together to improve healthcare experiences, systems and processes. Early evaluations and case studies of EBCD have shown promise in terms of improvements to experience and organisational processes, however challenges remain in participation around shared power and decision making, mobilisation for implementation, sustainment of improvements and measurement of outcomes. The objective of this case study was to explore the emergent issues in EBCD participation and implementation in six quality improvement projects conducted in mental health, rehabilitation, blood and bone marrow transplant, brain injury rehabilitation, urinary incontinence and intellectual disability settings by the Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI), New South Wales, Australia (2015-2018). Methods: A two stage process of analysis was employed. The first stage involved a case to case synthesis using a variable-oriented approach. In this approach themes were identified within individual cases and compared across cases in workshops with all project leads. In the second stage the case themes were synthesised within an overarching thematic that was identified as the main challenge in effective participation and implementation in these EBCD projects. The results: themes identified in the first stage of analysis related to different methods for gathering experiences and the activities used for the co-design of improvements. Variability in service user participation within co-design workshops was also discussed. Four out of the six projects implemented improvements in full. The prominent thematic overarching all six EBCD cases was the need for guidance on capability development and co-design preparedness for all participants in co-design not only project leads. In conclusion, variability in EBCD implementation makes it difficult to identify which component parts are essential for improving experiences and services, and which of these lead to sustained changes and benefits for service users and health professionals. One way to address this is to develop a model for co-design capability and preparedness that is closely linked with a set of eight mechanisms that have been previously identified as essential to achieving change in healthcare improvement initiatives. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (http://bit.ly/ExperienceFramework) Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

IntroductionImproving mental healthcare for adolescents is a global policy priority. Despite demands for community-based services, many adolescents require more intensive interventions, such as an inpatient admission. This is typically at a point of crisis, often accompanied by intense emotional dysregulation, impairment of coping function and impulsivity. However, limited evidence exists on how best to support this group while they are in inpatient care, aside from pharmacological treatments which have a limited role in adolescents. Little is known about the models of care (MoC) offered in inpatient units, whether adolescents perceive these as helpful and the perspectives of caregivers and clinicians. Here, we describe a protocol which aims to explore and evaluate an inpatient MoC.Methods and analysisWe designed a longitudinal, mixed-methods, case study. The population consists of adolescents, caregivers and clinicians at a single inpatient unit in Melbourne, Australia. Standardised outcome measures, including semi- structured interviews, will be administered to adolescents at three time-points, T1 (admission), T2 (discharge) and T3 (6 months post discharge). Caregivers will also be interviewed at T1, T2 and T3. Clinicians will be interviewed once. The measures include: Life Problems Inventory, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and the Youth Self-Report. Health of the Nation Outcome Scales for Children and Adolescents will be collected at T1 and T2. Quantitative analysis will include descriptive statistics and paired t-tests summarising adolescents admitted to the unit, clinical characteristics and longitudinal data on symptomatology. Qualitative data will be analysed using both thematic and trajectory analysis. Data collection began in May 2017 and will cease with T3 interviews by October 2018.Ethics and dissemination

PROBLEM: Little has been reported from clinicians about the operations, interventions, and outcomes of inpatient units and how these comprise models of care in such units. The aim of this study was to explore an inpatient model of care in operation at the study site by defining key features of the model from the perspectives of clinicians. METHODS: Semi-structured face to face interviews were conducted with ten clinicians working in a private inpatient unit in Melbourne, Australia. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Analysis resulted in the identification of three thematic features relating to containment, engagement, and therapy. These included (a) an environment conducive to containment, (b) adolescent engagement through shared experiences, and (c) dialectical behavior therapy embedded culture. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide insights into often unheard clinician perspectives on what the key features of an adolescent inpatient model of care are. These features relate to the interventions that are currently offered on the unit and ways of working as informed by philosophies and practices. These findings should be used to improve clinical services and inform research aiming to articulate exemplary adolescent inpatient models of care. Furthermore, the findings provide guidance and practical information to commissioners, clinicians, and policy makers implementing models of care.

Primary care practitioners (PCPs) do not routinely promote dementia risk reduction. The purpose of this study was to map the published literature on the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction, in order to identify implementation constructs and strategies crucial to the development of an implementation intervention to support dementia risk reduction in primary care. We undertook a scoping review of the PCPs’ views about promoting brain health for reducing dementia risk. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Embase for English-language articles published between 1995 and December 2017. We then applied the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and matched Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change to the scoping review findings in order to develop a preliminary implementation model. Eight articles reported views of PCPs about dementia prevention. Study findings were mapped to 5 of the 39 CFIR constructs: (i) knowledge and beliefs about dementia risk reduction, (ii) evidence strength and quality, (iii) relative priority, (iv) available resources, and (v) external policy and incentives. The findings suggest implementation strategies to consider in our preliminary model include (i) educational meetings, (ii) identifying and preparing champions, (iii) conducting local consensus discussions, (iv) altering incentive structures, and (v) capturing and sharing local knowledge. There have been few studies about the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction. Implementation in the primary care setting is fundamental to early identification of risk and supporting preventive practices, but it needs to focus on more than just education for PCPs. We need more up-to-date and in-depth data on the views of PCPs about dementia risk reduction and context-specific analyses of implementation needs. Further research into effective primary care interventions to reduce dementia risk is expected to support implementation efforts.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health care workers’ mental health and well-being for the successful function of the health care system. Few targeted digital tools exist to support the mental health of hospital-based health care workers, and none of them appear to have been led and co-designed by health care workers. Objective RMHive is being led and developed by health care workers using experience-based co-design (EBCD) processes as a mobile app to support the mental health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to health care workers. We present a protocol for the impact evaluation for the rapid design and delivery of the RMHive mobile app. Methods The impact evaluation will adopt a mixed methods design. Qualitative data from photo interviews undertaken with up to 30 health care workers and semistructured interviews conducted with up to 30 governance stakeholders will be integrated with qualitative and quantitative user analytics data and user-generated demographic and mental health data entered into the app. Analyses will address three evaluation questions related to engagement with the mobile app, implementation and integration of the app, and the impact of the app on individual mental health outcomes. The design and development will be described using the Mobile Health Evidence Reporting and Assessment guidelines. Implementation of the app will be evaluated using normalization process theory to analyze qualitative data from interviews combined with text and video analysis from the semistructured interviews. Mental health impacts will be assessed using the total score of the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ4) and subscale scores for the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression and the 2-item Generalized Anxiety Scale for anxiety. The PHQ4 will be completed at baseline and at 14 and 28 days. Results The anticipated average use period of the app is 30 days. The rapid design will occur over four months using EBCD to collect qualitative data and develop app content. The impact evaluation will monitor outcome data for up to 12 weeks following hospital-wide release of the minimal viable product release. The study received funding and ethics approvals in June 2020. Outcome data is expected to be available in March 2021, and the impact evaluation is expected to be published mid-2021. Conclusions The impact evaluation will examine the rapid design, development, and implementation of the RMHive app and its impact on mental health outcomes for health care workers. Findings from the impact evaluation will provide guidance for the integration of EBCD in rapid design and implementation processes. The evaluation will also inform future development and rollout of the app to support the mental health needs of hospital-based health care workers more widely. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/26168

Background At time of discharge after a pneumonia admission, care planning for older persons with dementia is essential. However, care planning is limited by lack of knowledge on the short-term prognosis. Aim To investigate 30-day mortality and readmission after hospital discharge for pneumonia in persons with versus without dementia, and to investigate how these associations vary with age, time since discharge, and medication use. Methods Using the Danish registries, we investigated 30-day mortality and readmission in persons (+65 years) discharged after pneumonia in 2000–2016 (N = 298,872). Adjusted mortality rate ratios (aMRRs) and incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) were calculated for persons with versus without dementia, and we investigated if these associations varied with use of benzodiazepines, opioids, and antipsychotics, and with age and time since discharge. Results Among 25,948 persons with dementia, 4,524 died and 5,694 were readmitted within 30 days. The risk of 30-day mortality was 129% higher (95% CI 2.21–2.37) in persons with versus without dementia after adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, admission-related factors, and comorbidities. Further, the highest mortality risk was found in persons with both dementia and use of antipsychotics (aMRR: 3.39, 95% CI 3.19–3.59); 16% of deaths in this group could not be explained by the independent effect of each exposure. In those with dementia, the highest aMRRs were found for the youngest and for the first days after discharge. The risk of 30-day readmission was 7% higher (95% CI 1.04–1.10) in persons with versus without dementia. In those with dementia, the highest aIRRs were found for the first days after discharge. Conclusions Dementia was associated with higher short-term mortality after pneumonia, especially in users of antipsychotics, and with slightly higher readmission, especially in the first days after discharge. This is essential knowledge in the care planning for persons with dementia who are discharged after a pneumonia admission.