Institut für Community Medicine
Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
Language
- English (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- dementia (7) (remove)
Institute
Publisher
- MDPI (5)
- Frontiers Media S.A. (1)
- Wiley (1)
Abstract
The increasing global prevalence of dementia demands concrete actions that are aimed strategically at optimizing processes that drive clinical innovation. The first step in this direction requires outlining hurdles in the transition from research to practice. The different parties needed to support translational processes have communication mismatches; methodological gaps hamper evidence‐based decision‐making; and data are insufficient to provide reliable estimates of long‐term health benefits and costs in decisional models. Pilot projects are tackling some of these gaps, but appropriate methods often still need to be devised or adapted to the dementia field. A consistent implementation perspective along the whole translational continuum, explicitly defined and shared among the relevant stakeholders, should overcome the “research‐versus‐adoption” dichotomy, and tackle the implementation cliff early on. Concrete next steps may consist of providing tools that support the effective participation of heterogeneous stakeholders and agreeing on a definition of clinical significance that facilitates the selection of proper outcome measures.
Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and “thinking-aloud” interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.
Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD’s conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.
Background: Multimorbidity is a common issue in aging societies and is usually associated with dementia in older people. Physical activity (PA) may be a beneficial nonpharmacological strategy for patients with complex health needs. However, insufficient PA is predominant in this population. Thus, there is an evident need to expand the knowledge on potential determinants influencing PA engagement among elderly persons at risk of dementia and multimorbidity. Methods: We used baseline data from the multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled AgeWell.de study. The main aim was to describe PA engagement and identify potential PA determinants in a sample of community-dwelling Germans aged 60–77 years old with an increased risk of dementia and multimorbidity. Results: Of the 1030 included participants, approximately half (51.8%) engaged in PA ≥2 times/week for at least 30 min at baseline. We identified self-efficacy (beta = 0.202, (p < 0.001) and BMI (beta = −0.055, (p < 0.001) as potential PA determinants. Conclusions: The identified determinants, self-efficacy, and BMI are consistent with those reported in the literature. Specific knowledge on PA determinants and stages of change in persons with risk of dementia and multimorbidity might guide the development of effective future prevention measures and health services tailored to this population. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (reference number: DRKS00013555).
Introduction: Hearing and vision loss are highly prevalent in elderly adults, and thus frequently occur in conjunction with cognitive impairments. Studies have shown that hearing impairment is associated with a higher risk of dementia. However, evidence concerning the association between vision loss and dementia, as well as the co-occurrence of vision and hearing loss and dementia, has been inconclusive.
Objectives: To assess the association between: (i) either hearing or vision loss and the risk of dementia, as well as between; and (ii) the combination of both sensory impairments and the risk of dementia.
Methods: This case-control study was based on a 5-year data set that included patients aged 65 years and older who had initially been diagnosed with dementia diseases by one of 1,203 general practitioners in Germany between January 2013 and December 2017. In total, 61,354 identified dementia cases were matched to non-dementia controls, resulting in a sample size of 122,708 individuals. Hearing loss and vision loss were identified using the ICD-10 diagnoses documented in the general practitioners’ files prior to the initial dementia diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted to evaluate the associations between visual and/or hearing impairment and the risk of dementia and controlled for sociodemographic and clinical variables.
Results: Hearing impairment was documented in 11.2% of patients with a dementia diagnosis and 9.5% of patients without such a diagnosis. Some form of vision impairment was documented in 28.4% of patients diagnosed with dementia and 28.8% of controls. Visual impairment was not significantly associated with dementia (OR = 0.97, CI = 95% 0.97–1.02, p = 0.219). However, patients with hearing impairment were at a significantly higher risk of developing dementia (OR = 1.26, CI = 95% 1.15–1.38, p < 0.001), a finding that very likely led to the observed significant association of the combination of both visual and hearing impairments and the risk of dementia (OR = 1.14, CI = 95% 1.04–1.24, p = 0.005).
Discussion: This analysis adds important evidence that contributes to the limited body of knowledge about the association between hearing and/or vision loss and dementia. It further demonstrates that, of the two, only hearing impairment affects patients’ cognition and thus contributes to dementia risk.