Factors of resilience in informal caregivers of people with dementia from integrative international data analysis

Background/Aims: Although caring for a person with dementia can be stressful, some caregivers appear to experience few negative consequences to their well-being. This study aimed to examine what proportion of caregivers demonstrates resilience under different challenging circumstances and to identify factors related to their resilience. Methods: Baseline data from 4 studies from the Netherlands and UK among informal caregivers of people with dementia were harmonized and integrated. Caregiver resilience was defined as high levels of psychological well-being despite different types of high caregiving demands. Multivariate regression analyses identified factors significantly related to caregiver resilience. Results: The integrated data set included 15 harmonized variables with data from 1,048 caregivers facing a high care demand. The prevalence of resilience varied between 35 and 43%, depending on the demand for high care. Being a male caregiver, caring for a female, living apart from your relative, and low caregiver burden were positively related to caregiver resilience. Conclusion: Caregivers have the capacity to demonstrate resilience despite significant challenges. This study demonstrates how harmonization of data from multiple existing studies can be used to increase power and explore the consistency of findings. This contributes to a better understanding of which factors are likely to facilitate caregiver resilience and offers insights for developing services

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19:a multicentre retrospective cohort study

Background: The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality. Objectives: To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication. Results: We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58–0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48–0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions: During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.</p

The effect of current antithrombotic therapy on mortality in nursing home residents with COVID-19:a multicentre retrospective cohort study

Background: The first wave of COVID led to an alarmingly high mortality rate among nursing home residents (NHRs). In hospitalised patients, the use of anticoagulants may be associated with a favourable prognosis. However, it is unknown whether the use of antithrombotic medication also protected NHRs from COVID-19-related mortality. Objectives: To investigate the effect of current antithrombotic therapy in NHRs with COVID-19 on 30-day all-cause mortality during the first COVID-19 wave. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study linking electronic health records and pharmacy data in NHRs with COVID-19. A propensity score was used to match NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants to NHRs not using anticoagulant medication. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, which was evaluated using a logistic regression model. In a secondary analysis, multivariable logistic regression was performed in the complete study group to compare NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants and those with current use of antiplatelet therapy to those without such medication. Results: We included 3521 NHRs with COVID-19 based on a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 or with a well-defined clinical suspicion of COVID-19. In the matched propensity score analysis, NHRs with current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants had a significantly lower all-cause mortality (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58–0.92) compared to NHRs who did not use therapeutic anticoagulants. In the secondary analysis, current use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.48–0.82) and current use of antiplatelet therapy (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–0.99) were both associated with decreased mortality. Conclusions: During the first COVID-19 wave, therapeutic anticoagulation and antiplatelet use were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality in NHRs. Whether these potentially protective effects are maintained in vaccinated patients or patients with other COVID-19 variants, remains unknown.</p

The impact of a visual arts program on quality of life, communication, and well-being of people living with dementia: a mixed-methods longitudinal investigation

Background: Research reviews highlight methodological limitations and gaps in the evidence base for the arts in dementia care. In response, we developed a 12-week visual art program and evaluated the impact on people living with dementia through a mixed-methods longitudinal investigation. Methods: One hundred and twenty-five people living with mild to severe dementia were recruited across three research settings in England and Wales (residential care homes, a county hospital, and community venues). Quantitative and qualitative data on quality of life (QoL), communication and perceptions of the program were obtained through interviews and self-reports with participants and their carers. Eight domains of well-being were measured using a standardized observation tool, and data compared to an alternative activity with no art. Results: Across all sites, scores for the well-being domains of interest, attention, pleasure, self-esteem, negative affect, and sadness were significantly better in the art program than the alternative condition. Proxy-reported QoL significantly improved between baseline and 3-month follow-up, but no improvements in QoL were reported by the participants with dementia. This was contrasted by their qualitative accounts, which described a stimulating experience important for social connectedness, well-being, and inner-strength. Communication deteriorated between baseline and follow-up in the hospital setting, but improved in the residential care setting. Conclusions: The findings highlight the potential for creative aging within dementia care, the benefits of art activities and the influence of the environment. We encourage dementia care providers and arts and cultural services to work toward embedding art activities within routine care provision

Effectiveness of family meetings for family caregivers on delaying time to nursing home placement of dementia patients: A randomized trial

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Interventions relieving the burden of caregiving may postpone or prevent patient institutionalization. The objective of this study was to determine whether a family meetings intervention was superior to usual care in postponing nursing home placement of patients with dementia.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>A randomized multicenter trial was conducted among 192 patients with a clinical diagnosis of dementia living at home at enrolment and their primary family caregiver. Dyads of caregivers and patients were randomized to the family meetings intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 96) condition. The intervention consisted of two individual sessions with the primary caregiver and four family counseling sessions that included family members and friends. The primary outcome measure was the time until institutionalization of the patient. Intention-to-treat as well as per protocol analyses were performed. Survival analyses were carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>During 18 months follow-up 23 of 96 relatives with dementia of caregivers in the intervention group and 18 of 96 relatives with dementia of caregivers in the usual care group were institutionalized. No significant difference between the intervention and the usual care group was found in time until institutionalization (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 2.74). The per-protocol analysis revealed no significant effect either (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.57), although the number of placements among the adherers was relatively low (9.4%). A subgroup effect was found for patients’ age, with a significantly higher risk of institutionalization for ‘younger’ patients in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (adjusted HR = 4.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 22.13).</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3><p>This family meetings intervention for primary caregivers of patients with dementia did not postpone patient institutionalization more than usual care.</p> <p>Trial Registration: <b>Controlled-Trials.com <a href="http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ISRCTN90163486">ISRCTN90163486</a></b></p></div

Does a Family Meetings Intervention Prevent Depression and Anxiety in Family Caregivers of Dementia Patients? A Randomized Trial

Family caregivers of dementia patients are at increased risk of developing depression or anxiety. A multi-component program designed to mobilize support of family networks demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing depressive symptoms in caregivers. However, the impact of an intervention consisting solely of family meetings on depression and anxiety has not yet been evaluated. This study examines the preventive effects of family meetings for primary caregivers of community-dwelling dementia patients.A randomized multicenter trial was conducted among 192 primary caregivers of community dwelling dementia patients. Caregivers did not meet the diagnostic criteria for depressive or anxiety disorder at baseline. Participants were randomized to the family meetings intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 96) condition. The intervention consisted of two individual sessions and four family meetings which occurred once every 2 to 3 months for a year. Outcome measures after 12 months were the incidence of a clinical depressive or anxiety disorder and change in depressive and anxiety symptoms (primary outcomes), caregiver burden and quality of life (secondary outcomes). Intention-to-treat as well as per protocol analyses were performed.A substantial number of caregivers (72/192) developed a depressive or anxiety disorder within 12 months. The intervention was not superior to usual care either in reducing the risk of disorder onset (adjusted IRR 0.98; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.38) or in reducing depressive (randomization-by-time interaction coefficient = -1.40; 95% CI -3.91 to 1.10) or anxiety symptoms (randomization-by-time interaction coefficient = -0.55; 95% CI -1.59 to 0.49). The intervention did not reduce caregiver burden or their health related quality of life.This study did not demonstrate preventive effects of family meetings on the mental health of family caregivers. Further research should determine whether this intervention might be more beneficial if provided in a more concentrated dose, when applied for therapeutic purposes or targeted towards subgroups of caregivers.Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN90163486

A study protocol of external validation of eight COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has a large impact worldwide and is known to particularly affect the older population. This paper outlines the protocol for external validation of prognostic models predicting mortality risk after presentation with COVID-19 in the older population. These prognostic models were originally developed in an adult population and will be validated in an older population (≥ 70 years of age) in three healthcare settings: the hospital setting, the primary care setting, and the nursing home setting.METHODS: Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, we identified eight prognostic models predicting the risk of mortality in adults with a COVID-19 infection (five COVID-19 specific models: GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, NEWS2 + model, Xie model, and Wang clinical model and three pre-existing prognostic scores: APACHE-II, CURB65, SOFA). These eight models will be validated in six different cohorts of the Dutch older population (three hospital cohorts, two primary care cohorts, and a nursing home cohort). All prognostic models will be validated in a hospital setting while the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model will be validated in hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. The study will include individuals ≥ 70 years of age with a highly suspected or PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection from March 2020 to December 2020 (and up to December 2021 in a sensitivity analysis). The predictive performance will be evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves for each of the prognostic models in each cohort individually. For prognostic models with indications of miscalibration, an intercept update will be performed after which predictive performance will be re-evaluated.DISCUSSION: Insight into the performance of existing prognostic models in one of the most vulnerable populations clarifies the extent to which tailoring of COVID-19 prognostic models is needed when models are applied to the older population. Such insight will be important for possible future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics.</p

A study protocol of external validation of eight COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has a large impact worldwide and is known to particularly affect the older population. This paper outlines the protocol for external validation of prognostic models predicting mortality risk after presentation with COVID-19 in the older population. These prognostic models were originally developed in an adult population and will be validated in an older population (≥ 70 years of age) in three healthcare settings: the hospital setting, the primary care setting, and the nursing home setting.METHODS: Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, we identified eight prognostic models predicting the risk of mortality in adults with a COVID-19 infection (five COVID-19 specific models: GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, NEWS2 + model, Xie model, and Wang clinical model and three pre-existing prognostic scores: APACHE-II, CURB65, SOFA). These eight models will be validated in six different cohorts of the Dutch older population (three hospital cohorts, two primary care cohorts, and a nursing home cohort). All prognostic models will be validated in a hospital setting while the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model will be validated in hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. The study will include individuals ≥ 70 years of age with a highly suspected or PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection from March 2020 to December 2020 (and up to December 2021 in a sensitivity analysis). The predictive performance will be evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves for each of the prognostic models in each cohort individually. For prognostic models with indications of miscalibration, an intercept update will be performed after which predictive performance will be re-evaluated.DISCUSSION: Insight into the performance of existing prognostic models in one of the most vulnerable populations clarifies the extent to which tailoring of COVID-19 prognostic models is needed when models are applied to the older population. Such insight will be important for possible future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics.</p

Predicting unplanned hospital visits in older home care recipients: a cross-country external validation study.

To access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked DownloadBackground: Accurate identification of older persons at risk of unplanned hospital visits can facilitate preventive interventions. Several risk scores have been developed to identify older adults at risk of unplanned hospital visits. It is unclear whether risk scores developed in one country, perform as well in another. This study validates seven risk scores to predict unplanned hospital admissions and emergency department (ED) visits in older home care recipients from six countries. Methods: We used the IBenC sample (n = 2446), a cohort of older home care recipients from six countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy and The Netherlands) to validate four specific risk scores (DIVERT, CARS, EARLI and previous acute admissions) and three frailty indicators (CHESS, Fried Frailty Criteria and Frailty Index). Outcome measures were unplanned hospital admissions, ED visits or any unplanned hospital visits after 6 months. Missing data were handled by multiple imputation. Performance was determined by assessing calibration and discrimination (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)). Results: Risk score performance varied across countries. In Iceland, for any unplanned hospital visits DIVERT and CARS reached a fair predictive value (AUC 0.74 [0.68-0.80] and AUC 0.74 [0.67-0.80]), respectively). In Finland, DIVERT had fair performance predicting ED visits (AUC 0.72 [0.67-0.77]) and any unplanned hospital visits (AUC 0.73 [0.67-0.77]). In other countries, AUCs did not exceed 0.70. Conclusions: Geographical validation of risk scores predicting unplanned hospital visits in home care recipients showed substantial variations of poor to fair performance across countries. Unplanned hospital visits seem considerably dependent on healthcare context. Therefore, risk scores should be validated regionally before applied to practice. Future studies should focus on identification of more discriminative predictors in order to develop more accurate risk scores. Keywords: Emergency department visits; Geographical validation; Home care; Risk prediction models; Unplanned hospitalizations.European Commissio

A study protocol of external validation of eight COVID-19 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk in older populations in a hospital, primary care, and nursing home setting

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has a large impact worldwide and is known to particularly affect the older population. This paper outlines the protocol for external validation of prognostic models predicting mortality risk after presentation with COVID-19 in the older population. These prognostic models were originally developed in an adult population and will be validated in an older population (≥ 70 years of age) in three healthcare settings: the hospital setting, the primary care setting, and the nursing home setting. Methods Based on a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, we identified eight prognostic models predicting the risk of mortality in adults with a COVID-19 infection (five COVID-19 specific models: GAL-COVID-19 mortality, 4C Mortality Score, NEWS2 + model, Xie model, and Wang clinical model and three pre-existing prognostic scores: APACHE-II, CURB65, SOFA). These eight models will be validated in six different cohorts of the Dutch older population (three hospital cohorts, two primary care cohorts, and a nursing home cohort). All prognostic models will be validated in a hospital setting while the GAL-COVID-19 mortality model will be validated in hospital, primary care, and nursing home settings. The study will include individuals ≥ 70 years of age with a highly suspected or PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection from March 2020 to December 2020 (and up to December 2021 in a sensitivity analysis). The predictive performance will be evaluated in terms of discrimination, calibration, and decision curves for each of the prognostic models in each cohort individually. For prognostic models with indications of miscalibration, an intercept update will be performed after which predictive performance will be re-evaluated. Discussion Insight into the performance of existing prognostic models in one of the most vulnerable populations clarifies the extent to which tailoring of COVID-19 prognostic models is needed when models are applied to the older population. Such insight will be important for possible future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics