New horizons for caring for people with dementia in hospital: the DEMENTIA CARE pointers for service change.

Approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions are older adults and almost half of these are likely to have some form of dementia. People with dementia are not only at an increased risk of adverse outcomes once admitted, but the unfamiliar environment and routinised practices of the wards and acute care can be particularly challenging for them, heightening their confusion, agitation and distress further impacting the ability to optimise their care. It is well established that a person-centred care approach helps alleviate some of the unfamiliar stress but how to embed this in the acute-care setting remains a challenge. In this article, we highlight the challenges that have been recognised in this area and put forward a set of evidence-based 'pointers for service change' to help organisations in the delivery of person-centred care. The DEMENTIA CARE pointers cover areas of: dementia awareness and understanding, education and training, modelling of person-centred care by clinical leaders, adapting the environment, teamwork (not being alone), taking the time to 'get to know', information sharing, access to necessary resources, communication, involving family (ask family), raising the profile of dementia care, and engaging volunteers. The pointers extend previous guidance, by recognising the importance of ward cultures that prioritise dementia care and institutional support that actively seeks to raise the profile of dementia care. The pointers provide a range of simple to more complex actions or areas for hospitals to help implement person-centred care approaches; however, embedding them within the organisational cultures of hospitals is the next challenge.

A systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school-based identification of children and young people at risk of, or currently experiencing mental health difficulties.

BACKGROUND: Although school-based programmes for the identification of children and young people (CYP) with mental health difficulties (MHD) have the potential to improve short- and long-term outcomes across a range of mental disorders, the evidence-base on the effectiveness of these programmes is underdeveloped. In this systematic review, we sought to identify and synthesise evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school-based methods to identify students experiencing MHD, as measured by accurate identification, referral rates, and service uptake. METHOD: Electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, British Education Index and ASSIA were searched. Comparative studies were included if they assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of strategies to identify students in formal education aged 3-18 years with MHD, presenting symptoms of mental ill health, or exposed to psychosocial risks that increase the likelihood of developing a MHD. RESULTS: We identified 27 studies describing 44 unique identification programmes. Only one study was a randomised controlled trial. Most studies evaluated the utility of universal screening programmes; where comparison of identification rates was made, the comparator test varied across studies. The heterogeneity of studies, the absence of randomised studies and poor outcome reporting make for a weak evidence-base that only generate tentative conclusions about the effectiveness of school-based identification programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed pragmatic trials that include the evaluation of cost-effectiveness and detailed process evaluations are necessary to establish the accuracy of different identification models, as well as their effectiveness in connecting students to appropriate support in real-world settings.

Dissemination and implementation research in dementia care: a systematic scoping review and evidence map.

BACKGROUND: The need to better understand implementing evidence-informed dementia care has been recognised in multiple priority-setting partnerships. The aim of this scoping review was to give an overview of the state of the evidence on implementation and dissemination of dementia care, and create a systematic evidence map. METHODS: We sought studies that addressed dissemination and implementation strategies or described barriers and facilitators to implementation across dementia stages and care settings. Twelve databases were searched from inception to October 2015 followed by forward citation and grey literature searches. Quantitative studies with a comparative research design and qualitative studies with recognised methods of data collection were included. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers with discrepancies resolved by a third where necessary. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Strategies were mapped according to the ERIC compilation. RESULTS: Eighty-eight studies were included (30 quantitative, 34 qualitative and 24 mixed-methods studies). Approximately 60% of studies reported implementation strategies to improve practice: training and education of professionals (94%), promotion of stakeholder interrelationships (69%) and evaluative strategies (46%) were common; financial strategies were rare (15%). Nearly 70% of studies reported barriers or facilitators of care practices primarily within residential care settings. Organisational factors, including time constraints and increased workload, were recurrent barriers, whereas leadership and managerial support were often reported to promote implementation. Less is known about implementation activities in primary care and hospital settings, or the views and experiences of people with dementia and their family caregivers. CONCLUSION: This scoping review and mapping of the evidence reveals a paucity of robust evidence to inform the successful dissemination and implementation of evidence-based dementia care. Further exploration of the most appropriate methods to evaluate and report initiatives to bring about change and of the effectiveness of implementation strategies is necessary if we are to make changes in practice that improve dementia care.

Non-familial intergenerational interventions and their impact on social and mental wellbeing of both younger and older people-A mapping review and evidence and gap map.

Background: Opportunities for social connection between generations in the UK have diminished over the last few decades because of changes in the way that we live and work. The decline in communal spaces such as libraries, youth clubs and community centres mean that there are fewer opportunities to meet and mix socially with other generations outside our own families. Increased working hours, improved technology, changes in family patterns, relationship breakdowns within families and migration are also believed to be contributory factors to generation segregation. There are many potential economic, social and political impacts of generations living separate and parallel lives, for example, higher health and social care costs, an undermining of trust between generations reduced social capital, a reliance on the media to form understanding of others' viewpoints and higher levels of anxiety and loneliness. Intergenerational programmes and activities can take many forms and are delivered in many settings.  Evidence suggests that intergenerational activity can have a positive impact on participants, for example, in reducing loneliness and exclusion for both older people and children and young people, improving mental health, increasing mutual understanding and addressing important issues such as ageism, housing and care. There are currently no other EGMs that exist that address this type of intervention; however, it would complement existing EGMs addressing child welfare. Objectives: To identify, appraise and bring together the evidence on the use of intergenerational practice, to answer the following specific research questions: What is the volume, nature and diversity of research on, and evaluation of, intergenerational practice and learning?What approaches have been used to deliver intergenerational activities and programmes that may be relevant to providing such services during and in the subsequent recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?What promising intergenerational activities and programmes have been developed and are being used but have not yet been subject to formal evaluation? Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via OvidSp), EMBASE (via OvidSp), PsycINFO (via OvidSp), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), Social Policy and Practice (via OvidSp), Health Management Information Consortium (via OvidSp), Ageline (via EBSCOhost), ASSIA (via ProQuest), Social Science Citations Index (via Web of Science), ERIC (via EBSCOhost), Community Care Inform Children, Research in Practice for Children, ChildData (via Social Policy and Practice), the Campbell Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the CENTRAL database between 22 and 30 July 2021. We searched for additional grey literature via the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (via Web of Science) and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global and via relevant organisation websites, for example, Age UK, Age International, the Centre for Ageing Better, Barnado's, Children's Commission, UNICEF, Generations Working Together, the Intergenerational Foundation, Linking Generations and The Beth Johnson Foundation) and the Ottawa initiative called Older Adults and Students for Intergenerational support. Selection Criteria: Any intervention that brings older and younger people together with the purpose of interacting to achieve positive health and/or social and/or educational outcomes from any study design including systematic reviews, randomised controlled studies, observational studies, surveys and qualitative studies are included. The titles and abstracts, and later full texts, of records identified by the search methods were screened against inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data Collection and Analysis: Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second with any inconsistencies identified and resolved through discussion. The data extraction tool was developed on EPPI reviewer and was modified and tested through stakeholder and advisor consultation, and piloting of the process. The tool was informed by the research question and the structure of the map. We did not undertake quality appraisal of the included studies. Main Results: Our searches identified 12,056 references, after screening 500 research articles were included in the evidence gap map conducted across 27 countries. We identified 26 systematic reviews, 236 quantitative comparative studies (of which 38 were randomised controlled trials), 227 were qualitative studies (or had a qualitative element), 105 were observational studies (or had elements of observational methods) and 82 used a mixed methods approach. The outcomes reported in the research cover mental health (n = 73), physical health (n = 62), attainment and knowledge (n = 165), agency (n = 174), mental wellbeing (n = 224), loneliness and social isolation (n = 54), attitudes towards the other generation (n = 283), intergenerational interactions (n = 196), peer interactions (n = 30) and health promotion (n = 23) and including mutual outcomes such as the impact on community (n = 37) and perceptions on the sense of community (n = 43). Gaps in the evidence that were identified include: research that reports on mutual, societal and community outcomes of intergenerational interventions; more research on interventions classified as levels 1-4 and level 7 on the Intergenerational Engagement Scale, mental health, loneliness, social isolation, peer interactions, physical health and health promotion outcomes in children and young people; health promotion in older people; outcomes centred on care giver wellbeing, mental health and attitudes; economic outcomes; process outcomes and adverse or unexpected outcomes. Authors' Conclusions: Whilst a substantional amount of research on intergenerational interventions has been identified in this EGM, as well as the gaps identified above, there is a need to explore promising interventions not yet formally evaluated. Research on this topic is gradually increasing, and systematic reviews will be important to determine how and why interventions are or are not beneficial. However, the primary research needs to build more cohesively so that the findings can be comparable and avoid research waste. The EGM presented here will nevertheless be a useful resource for decision-makers allowing them to explore the evidence with regard to the different interventions that may be relevant to their population needs and the settings or resources available to them.

Antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: an updated and expanded meta-ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Reducing unnecessary prescribing remains a key priority for tackling the global rise of antibiotic-resistant infections. AIM: The authors sought to update a 2011 qualitative synthesis of GPs' experiences of antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (ARTIs), including their views of interventions aimed at more prudent prescribing. They expanded the original scope to encompass all primary care professionals (PCPs) who can prescribe or dispense antibiotics for ARTIs (for example, nurses and pharmacists). DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, and Web of Science. No date or language restrictions were used. Identified studies were grouped according to their thematic focus (usual care versus intervention), and two separate syntheses were performed. RESULTS: In all, 53 articles reporting the experiences of >1200 PCPs were included. Analysis of usual-care studies showed that PCPs tend to assume multiple roles in the context of ARTI consultations (the expert self, the benevolent self, the practical self), depending on the range of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual situations in which they find themselves. Analysis of intervention studies identified four possible ways in which PCPs may experience quality improvement interventions (compromise, 'supportive aids', source of distress, and unnecessary). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the original review, these results suggest that the use of the same intervention is experienced in a totally different way by different PCPs, and that the same elements that are perceived as benefits by some could be viewed as drawbacks by others. Acceptability of interventions is likely to increase if these are context sensitive and take into account PCPs' varying roles and changing priorities.