Association between sedentary time and cognitive function: A focus on different domains of sedentary behavior.

Studies which examined the association between sedentary behavior (SB) and cognitive function have presented equivocal findings. Mentally active/inactive sedentary domains may relate differently to cognitive function. We examined associations between SB and cognitive function, specifically focusing on different domains. Participants were recruited from the Nijmegen Exercise Study 2018 in the Netherlands. SB (hours/day) was measured with the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire. Cognitive function was assessed with a validated computer self-test (COST-A), and a z-score calculated for global cognitive function. Multivariate linear regression assessed associations between tertiles of sedentary time and cognitive function. Cognition tests were available from 2821 participants, complete data from 2237 participants (43% female), with a median age of 61 [IQR 52-67] and a mean sedentary time of 8.3 ± 3.2 h/day. In fully adjusted models, cognitive function was significantly better in participants with the highest total sedentary time (0.07 [95% CI 0.02-0.12], P = 0.01), work-related sedentary time (0.13 [95% CI 0.07-0.19], P  0.05). We found a strong, independent positive association between total SB and cognitive function in a heterogenous population. This relation was not consistent across different domains, with especially work- and computer-related SB being positively associated with cognitive function. This highlights the importance of assessing the various sedentary domains in understanding the relation between sedentary time and cognitive function

Comparing palliative care in care homes across Europe (PACE) : protocol of a cross-sectional study of deceased residents in 6 EU countries

Objectives: Although a growing number of older people are dying in care homes, palliative care has developed in these settings only recently. Cross-country representative comparative research hardly exists in this area. As part of a large EU-funded project, we aim to undertake representative comparative research in care homes in Europe, to describe and compare 6 countries in terms of (1) resident outcomes, quality and costs of palliative and end-of-life care; and (2) palliative care structures and staff knowledge and attitudes toward palliative care. We also aim to explore country, facility, staff, patient, and care characteristics related to better outcomes at resident level. Design and Methods: To obtain a representative nationwide sample, we will conduct a large-scale cross-sectional study of deceased residents in care homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom, using proportional stratified random sampling (taking into account region, facility type and bed capacity). In each country, all participating care homes retrospectively report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over the previous 3-month period. For each case, structured questionnaires, including validated instruments, are sent to (1) the administrator/manager, (2) staff member most involved in care, (3) treating physician (general practitioner or elderly care physician), and (4) a closely involved relative. It is estimated that, per country, 50 care homes are needed on average to obtain a minimum of 200 deceased residents. Collected data include clinical and socio-demographic characteristics, quality of dying, quality and costs of palliative care and end-of-life care, and palliative care structures at the facility level and country level. To obtain a representative view of staff knowledge and attitudes regarding palliative care, PACE will conduct a cross-sectional study of staff working in the participating care homes. Conclusion: Considering the growing challenges associated with aging in all European countries, there is an urgent need to build a robust international comparative evidence base that can inform the development of policies to target improved palliative care in care homes. By describing this research protocol, we hope to inform international research in care homes on how to perform representative end-of-life care research in these settings and better understand which systems are associated with better outcomes

The Cognitive Online Self-Test Amsterdam (COST-A): Establishing norm scores in a community-dwelling population.

Background: Heightened public awareness about Alzheimer's disease and dementia increases the need for at-home cognitive self-testing. We offered Cognitive Online Self-Test Amsterdam (COST-A) to independent groups of cognitively normal adults and investigated the robustness of a norm-score formula and cutoff. Methods: Three thousand eighty-eight participants (mean age ± standard deviation = 61 ± 12 years, 70% female) completed COST-A and evaluated it. Demographically adjusted norm scores were the difference between expected COST-A scores, based on age, gender, and education, and actual scores. We applied the resulting norm-score formula to two independent cohorts. Results: Participants evaluated COST-A to be of adequate difficulty and duration. Our norm-score formula was shown to be robust: ≈8% of participants in two cognitively normal cohorts had abnormal scores. A cutoff of -1.5 standard deviations proved optimal for distinguishing normal from impaired cognition. Conclusion: With robust norm scores, COST-A is a promising new tool for research and clinical practice, providing low cost and minimally invasive remote assessment of cognitive functioning

Implementing the chronic care model for frail older adults in the Netherlands: study protocol of ACT (frail older adults: care in transition)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Care for older adults is facing a number of challenges: health problems are not consistently identified at a timely stage, older adults report a lack of autonomy in their care process, and care systems are often confronted with the need for better coordination between health care professionals. We aim to address these challenges by introducing the geriatric care model, based on the chronic care model, and to evaluate its effects on the quality of life of community-dwelling frail older adults.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>In a 2-year stepped-wedge cluster randomised clinical trial with 6-monthly measurements, the chronic care model will be compared with usual care. The trial will be carried out among 35 primary care practices in two regions in the Netherlands. Per region, practices will be randomly allocated to four allocation arms designating the starting point of the intervention. <it>Participants</it>: 1200 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 or over and their primary informal caregivers. Primary care physicians will identify frail individuals based on a composite definition of frailty and a polypharmacy criterion. Final inclusion criterion: scoring 3 or more on a disability case-finding tool. <it>Intervention</it>: Every 6 months patients will receive a geriatric in-home assessment by a practice nurse, followed by a tailored care plan. Expert teams will manage and train practice nurses. Patients with complex care needs will be reviewed in interdisciplinary consultations. <it>Evaluation</it>: We will perform an effect evaluation, an economic evaluation, and a process evaluation. Primary outcome is quality of life as measured with the Short Form-12 questionnaire. Effect analyses will be based on the “intention-to-treat” principle, using multilevel regression analysis. Cost measurements will be administered continually during the study period. A cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis will be conducted comparing mean total costs to functional status, care needs and QALYs. We will investigate the level of implementation, barriers and facilitators to successful implementation and the extent to which the intervention manages to achieve the transition necessary to overcome challenges in elderly care.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is one of the first studies assessing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and implementation process of the chronic care model for frail community-dwelling older adults.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR2160.</p