Decision aids for respite service choices by carers of people with dementia: development and pilot RCT

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Decision aids are often used to assist individuals confronted with a diagnosis of a serious illness to make decisions about treatment options. However, they are rarely utilised to help those with chronic or age related conditions to make decisions about care services. Decision aids should also be useful for carers of people with decreased decisional capacity. These carers' choices must balance health outcomes for themselves and for salient others with relational and value-based concerns, while relying on information from health professionals. This paper reports on a study that both developed and pilot tested a decision aid aimed at assisting carers to make evaluative judgements of community services, particularly respite care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A mixed method sequential study, involving qualitative development and a pilot randomised controlled trial, was conducted in Tasmania, Australia. We undertook 13 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups to inform the development of the decision aid. For the randomised control trial we randomly assigned 31 carers of people with dementia to either receive the service decision aid at the start or end of the study. The primary outcome was measured by comparing the difference in carer burden between the two groups three months after the intervention group received the decision aid. Pilot data was collected from carers using interviewer-administered questionnaires at the commencement of the project, two weeks and 12 weeks later.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The qualitative data strongly suggest that the intervention provides carers with needed decision support. Most carers felt that the decision aid was useful. The trial data demonstrated that, using the mean change between baseline and three month follow-up, the intervention group had less increase in burden, a decrease in decisional conflict and increased knowledge compared to control group participants.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While these results must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size, all intervention results trend in a direction that is beneficial for carers and their decisional ability. Mixed method data suggest the decision aid provides decisional support that carers do not otherwise receive. Decision aids may prove useful in a community health services context.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN32163031">ISRCTN32163031</a></p

Systematic screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions: Still debatable

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Assessing people's ability to drive has become a public health concern in most industrialized countries. Although age itself is not a predictive factor of an increased risk for dangerous driving, the prevalence of medical conditions that may impair driving increases with age. Because the implementation of a screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions is a public health issue, its usefulness should be judged using standardised criteria already proposed for screening for chronic disease. The aim of this paper is to propose standardised criteria suitable to assess the scientific validity of screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions, and identify potential issues to be clarified before screening can be implemented and effective.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Using criteria developed for screening for chronic diseases and published studies on driving with medical conditions, we specify six criteria to judge the opportunity of screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions. This adaptation was needed because of the complexity of the natural history of medical conditions and their potential consequences on driving and road safety. We then illustrate that published studies pleading for or against screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions fail to provide the needed documentation. Individual criteria were mentioned in 3 to 72% of 36 papers pleading for or against screening. Quantitative estimates of relevant indicators were provided in at most 42% of papers, and some data, such as the definition of an appropriate unsafe driving period were never provided.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The standardised framework described in this paper provides a template for assessing the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of proposed measures for screening for unsafe driving due to medical conditions. Even if most criteria were mentioned in the published literature pleading for or against such a screening, the failure to find quantitative and evidence-based estimates of relevant indicators provides useful insight for further research.</p

Assessing people with dementia participating in cognitive stimulation activities – A qualitative pilot video analysis exploring the importance of facilitating the participation

BACKGROUND: This pilot video analysis was part of a feasibility control study, which aimed to gain information about the size and variability of the changes in outcome measures to plan a substantive effect study. It compared a cognitive stimulation programme named Lifelong Learning with other existing dementia services. OBJECTIVE: The pilot video analysis explored how facilitation is performed, when assessing people with dementia with standardized measures, to ensure their participation in research. DESIGN: A test battery of five measures (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (QoL-AD), General Self-Efficacy Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Hawthorn Friendship Scale) was used. Each assessment was video-recorded. The findings from a microanalysis of 10 videos are presented in this article. SETTING: The study involved 55 active participants with mild-to-moderate dementia in six municipalities in Northern Denmark. RESULTS: The identified themes related to supportive facilitation: Positive facilitator strategies; Creating a safe and comfortable environment; and to dilemmas in facilitation: Balancing multiple dilemmas and Balancing the MMSE test. DISCUSSION: Results are discussed in relation to using standardized measures. CONCLUSION: The quality of facilitation when using standardized measures is of great importance as it may influence the participant, the assessment and the answers given. The facilitation role needs to be thoroughly planned and executed with ethical consideration to improve the participation of vulnerable groups in research and ensure a person-centred approach. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The identified measures were chosen based upon previous qualitative results and user-involvement workshops with people with dementia

Enhanced verification test suite for physics simulation codes

This document discusses problems with which to augment, in quantity and in quality, the existing tri-laboratory suite of verification problems used by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The purpose of verification analysis is demonstrate whether the numerical results of the discretization algorithms in physics and engineering simulation codes provide correct solutions of the corresponding continuum equations