Search

IntroductionMost people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes, and are supported to do so by family carers and homecare workers. There are concerns that homecare is often unable to meet the needs of this client group, with limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve it for people living with dementia. We have developed a training and support programme for homecare workers (NIDUS-Professional) to be delivered alongside support sessions for people living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). We aim to assess (1) its acceptability among homecare workers and employing agencies, and (2) the feasibility of homecare workers, people living with dementia and their family carers completing the outcomes of intervention in a future randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, multisite feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 60-90 homecare workers, 30-60 clients living with dementia and their family carers through 6-9 English homecare agencies. In the intervention arm, homecare staff will be offered six group sessions on video call over three months, followed by monthly group sessions over the subsequent three-month period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and at six months.Ethics and disseminationThe study received ethical approval on 7 January 2020 from the Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee. Study reference: 19/LO/1667. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentation and blog to research and clinical audiences; we will attend forums to present findings to participating homecare agencies and their clients.Trial registration numberISRCTN15757555.

BackgroundMost people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months.MethodsA randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator.DiscussionIncreasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

Background and objectivesThe Covid-19 pandemic reduced access to social activities and routine health care that are central to dementia prevention. We developed a group-based, video-call, cognitive well-being intervention; and investigated its acceptability and feasibility; exploring through participants' accounts how the intervention was experienced and used in the pandemic context.Research design and methodWe recruited adults aged 60+ years with memory concerns (without dementia). Participants completed baseline assessments and qualitative interviews/focus groups before and after the 10-week intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis.Results12/17 participants approached completed baseline assessments, attended 100/120 (83.3%) intervention sessions and met 140/170 (82.4%) of goals set. Most had not used video calling before. In the thematic analysis, our overarching theme was social connectedness. Three sub-themes were as follows: Retaining independence and social connectedness: social connectedness could not be at the expense of independence; Adapting social connectedness in the pandemic: participants strived to compensate for previous social connectedness as the pandemic reduced support networks; Managing social connections within and through the intervention: although there were tensions, for example, between sharing of achievements feeling supportive and competitive, participants engaged with various lifestyle changes; social connections supported group attendance and implementation of lifestyle changes.Discussion and implicationsOur intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver by group video-call. We argue that dementia prevention is both an individual and societal concern. For more vulnerable populations, messages that lifestyle change can help memory should be communicated alongside supportive, relational approaches to enabling lifestyle changes.

Objective: As populations age globally, there is an increasing prevalence of dementia, with an estimated 153 million living with dementia by 2050. Up to 70% of people with dementia experience dementia‐related psychosis (D‐RP). Antipsychotic medications are associated with many adverse effects in older people. This review aims to evaluate the evidence of non‐pharmacological interventions in managing D‐RP. Method: The search of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane included randomised controlled trials that evaluated non‐pharmacological interventions. Data extraction and assessment of quality were assessed independently by two researchers. Heterogenous interventions were pooled using meta‐analysis. Results: A total of 18 articles (n = 2040 participants) were included and categorised into: sensory‐, activity‐, cognitive‐ and multi‐component‐orientated. Meta‐analyses showed no significant impact in reducing hallucinations or delusions but person‐centred care, cognitive rehabilitation, music therapy, and robot pets showed promise in single studies. Conclusions and Implications: Future interventions should be developed and evaluated with a specific focus on D‐RP as this was not the aim for many of the included articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction We report a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within a randomised controlled trial. We aimed to test and refine a theory of change model hypothesising key causal assumptions to understand how the New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-Family (a manualised, multimodal psychosocial intervention), was effective relative to usual care, on the primary outcome of Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) over 1 year. Methods In 2021–2022, intervention-arm dyads completed an acceptability questionnaire developed to test causal assumptions. We conducted qualitative interviews with dyads and intervention facilitators, purposively selected for diverse follow-up GAS scores. We collected observational data from intervention session recordings. We thematically analysed data, then integrated qualitative and quantitative data. Results 174/204 (85.3%) dyads allocated to NIDUS-Family, fully completed it, 18 partially completed, while 12 received no intervention. We interviewed 27/192 (14%) of dyads receiving any sessions, and 9/10 facilitators; and observed 12 sessions. 47/192 (24.5%) of carers completed the acceptability questionnaire. We identified four themes: (A) 'Someone to talk to helps dyads feel supported'; (B) 'NIDUS-Family helps carers change their perspective'; (C) 'Personalisation helps people living with dementia maintain their identity' and (D) 'Small steps help dyads move forward'. Conclusion Key causal pathway mechanisms were: a respectful, trusting and impartial relationship with the facilitator: supporting the development of meaningful goals and support to find manageable solutions. Core implementation factors were delivery of the modules from a consistent facilitator across regular sessions. Core contextual factors influencing these mechanisms were dyadic participation and understanding of abilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A history of anxiety is more common in people with Parkinson's disease (PD). The prospective risk of PD in those newly presenting with anxiety and factors that increase the risk of PD in patients with anxiety have not been investigated. Aim: To investigate the incidence of PD in people with anxiety aged ≥50 years and clinical features associated with later diagnosis of PD in people with anxiety. Design and setting: A retrospective cohort study using UK primary care data between 2008 and 2018, assessing patients with new-onset anxiety aged ≥50 years. Method: Weibull survival regression models were fitted and hazard ratios (HRs) for modelling time-to-PD was estimated in those with and without anxiety, and when determining the risk of developing PD in those with anxiety. Results were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, and relevant physical and mental health conditions. Results: The risk of PD increased two-fold compared with the non-anxiety group after adjustment for age, sex, social deprivation, lifestyle factors, severe mental illness, head trauma, and dementia (HR 2.1, 95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 2.4). In those with anxiety, the presence of depression, hypotension, tremor, rigidity, balance impairment, constipation, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and cognitive impairment were associated with an increased risk of developing PD. Conclusion: The risk of developing PD was at least doubled in people with anxiety compared with those without. The clinical features of those who developed PD can help identify patients presenting with anxiety who are in the prodromal phase of PD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of people living with diabetes is rising worldwide and a higher prevalence of diabetes has been linked to those experiencing socioeconomic deprivation. Self‐management strategies are vital and known to reduce the risks of long‐term complications amongst people living with diabetes. Lack of knowledge about self‐care activity required to manage diabetes is a key barrier to successful self‐management. Self‐management interventions can be less effective in socioeconomically deprived populations which can increase the risk of exacerbating health inequalities. The purpose of this review is to identify and synthesise qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators of self‐management of diabetes amongst people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus were searched for qualitative studies concerning self‐management of multiple long‐term conditions amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Relevant papers which focused on diabetes were identified. Data were coded and thematically synthesised using NVivo. Findings: From the search results, 79 qualitative studies were identified after full‐text screening and 26 studies were included in the final thematic analysis. Two overarching analytical themes were identified alongside a set of subthemes: (1) Socioeconomic barriers to diabetes self‐management; healthcare costs, financial costs of healthy eating, cultural influences, living in areas of deprivation, competing priorities and time constraints, health literacy, (2) facilitators of diabetes self‐management; lifestyle and having goals, support from healthcare providers, informal support. Discussion: Self‐management of diabetes is challenging for people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation due to barriers associated with living in areas of deprivation and financial barriers surrounding healthcare, medication and healthy food. Support from healthcare providers can facilitate self‐management, and it is important that people with diabetes have access to interventions that are designed to be inclusive from a cultural perspective as well as affordable. Patient or Public Contribution: A patient advisory group contributed to the research questions and interpretation of the qualitative findings by reflecting on the themes developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction In the first randomised controlled trial of a dementia training and support intervention in UK homecare agencies, we aimed to assess: acceptability of our co-designed, manualised training, delivered by non-clinical facilitators; outcome completion feasibility; and costs for a future trial. Methods This cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, feasibility trial involved English homecare agencies. Intervention arm agency staff were offered group videocall sessions: 6 over 3 months, then monthly for 3 months (NIDUS-professional). Family carers (henceforth carers) and clients with dementia (dyads) were offered six to eight complementary, individual intervention sessions (NIDUS-Family). We collected potential trial measures as secondary outcomes remotely at baseline and 6 months: HCW (homecare worker) Work-related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Sense of Competence (SoC); proxy-rated Quality of Life (QOL), Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Homecare Satisfaction (HCS). Results From December 2021 to September 2022, we met agency (4 intervention, 2 control) and HCWs (n  = 62) recruitment targets and recruited 16 carers and 16/60 planned clients. We met a priori progression criteria for adherence (≥4/6 sessions: 29/44 [65.9%,95% confidence interval (CI): 50.1,79.5]), HCW or carer proxy-outcome completion (15/16 (93.8% [69.8,99.8]) and proceeding with adaptation for HCWs outcome completion (46/63 (73.0% [CI: 60.3,83.4]). Delivery of NIDUS-Professional costs was £6,423 (£137 per eligible client). WRSI scores decreased and SoC increased at follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. For intervention arm proxy-rated outcomes, carer-rated QOL increased, HCW-rated was unchanged; carer and HCW-rated NPI decreased; DAD decreased (greater disability) and HCS was unchanged. Conclusion A pragmatic trial is warranted; we will consider using aggregated, agency-level client outcomes, including neuropsychiatric symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]