Acceptability of Using a Decision Aid to Support Family Carers of People With Dementia Towards the End of Life: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences, acceptability and utility of a decision aid for family carers of people with dementia towards the end of life. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of family carers enroled into a 6-month feasibility study in England, sampling to gain a range of experiences and views, based on relationship to person they cared for (e.g., spouse, adult child), age, gender, and self-reported use of the decision aid during the feasibility study. Interviews were conducted in March 2021-July 2021 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used COREQ checklist to report our methods and results. RESULTS: Family carers found the decision aid acceptable, describing it as comprehensive, accessible with relevant information and its presentation enabled good engagement. Experiences of the decision aid covered four main themes which demonstrated the perceived acceptability and utility: 1. A source of support and reassurance; 2. Empowering conversations and confidence; 3. Including the person living with dementia; and 4. Breaking down complexity. CONCLUSIONS: An aid focussing on decisions about dementia end of life care supported family carers break down complex and emotive decisions, not only with making decisions in the moment but also in future planning. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our three Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members (all former family carers) were crucial throughout the wider study. PPI supported development of the topic guides, supported trialling the topic guide and interview procedures and finally supported the development of themes as part of the analysis.

Experiences of people with dementia and informal caregivers with post-diagnostic support: Data from the international COGNISANCE study.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to describe people with dementia and informal caregivers' respective experiences of support after diagnosis and compares these experiences. Additionally, we determine how people with dementia and informal caregivers who are satisfied with support differ from those dissatisfied. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, and United Kingdom was carried out to examine people with dementia and informal caregivers experience with support (satisfaction with information, access to care, health literacy, and confidence in ability to live well with dementia). The separate surveys contained closed questions. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Ninety people with dementia and 300 informal caregivers participated, and 69% of people with dementia and 67% of informal caregivers said support after diagnosis helped them deal more efficiently with their concerns. Up to one-third of people with dementia and informal caregivers were dissatisfied with information about management, prognosis, and strategies for living positively. Few people with dementia (22%) and informal caregivers (35%) received a care plan. People with dementia were more often satisfied with information, had more often confidence in their ability to live well with dementia, and were less often satisfied with access to care compared to informal caregivers. Informal caregivers who were satisfied with support were more satisfied with information and access to care compared to informal caregivers not satisfied with support. CONCLUSIONS: Experience of dementia support can be improved and people with dementia and informal caregiver differ in their experiences of support.

Development of a decision-support framework to support professionals and promote comfort among older hospital inpatients living with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Acute hospital wards can be difficult places for many people living with dementia. Promoting comfort and wellbeing can be challenging in this environment. There is little evidence-based support for professionals working on acute care wards on how to respond to distress and maximise comfort and wellbeing among patients living with dementia. OBJECTIVES: Our overall aim was to codesign an evidence-based easy-to-use heuristic decision-support framework, which was acceptable and practical but acknowledges the complex and acute nature of caring for patients with dementia in the hospital. This paper presents the development process and resulting framework. METHODS: A codesign study was informed by data from (1) a literature review of the care and management of people living with dementia in acute hospitals; (2) a cohort study of comfort and discomfort in people with dementia in acute hospitals; and (3) interviews with family carers and health care professionals. We synthesised evidence from these data sources and presented to key stakeholders through codesign meetings and workshops to produce our decision-support framework. RESULTS: The framework consists of a series of flowcharts and operates using a three-stage process of: (1) assess comfort/discomfort; (2) consider causes of discomfort; and (3) address patient needs to manage the discomfort. CONCLUSION: Working with key stakeholders, synthesising diverse quantitative and qualitative evidence to build a clinical framework is a feasible approach to help address the needs of patients living with dementia in an acute hospital setting. The result is a framework which is now ready for evaluation and implementation. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We worked closely with people living with dementia and family carers throughout this study, including the development of the study protocol with input on study development and design, through to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and codesign of the decision support framework.

Views of people living with dementia and their carers on their present and future: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Dementia leads to multiple issues including difficulty in communication and increased need for care and support. Discussions about the future often happen late or never, partly due to reluctance or fear. In a sample of people living with dementia and carers, we explored their views and perceptions of living with the condition and their future. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 2018-19 with 11 people living with dementia and six family members in England. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Findings were explored critically within the theory of social death and three themes were developed: (1) loss of physical and cognitive functions, (2) loss of social identity, and (3) social connectedness. Most participants living with dementia and carers wanted to discuss the present, rather than the future, believing a healthy lifestyle would prevent the condition from worsening. Those with dementia wanted to maintain control of their lives and demonstrated this by illustrating their independence. Care homes were often associated with death and loss of social identity. Participants used a range of metaphors to describe their dementia and the impact on their relationships and social networks. CONCLUSION: Focusing on maintaining social identity and connectedness as part of living well with dementia may assist professionals in undertaking advance care planning discussions.

Incidence, age at diagnosis and survival with dementia across ethnic groups in England: A longitudinal study using electronic health records.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the incidence of diagnosed dementia and whether age at diagnosis and survival afterward differs among the United Kingdom's three largest ethnic groups. METHODS: We used primary care electronic health records, linked Hospital Episode Statistics and mortality data for adults aged ≥65 years. We compared recorded dementia incidence 1997-2018, age at diagnosis, survival time and age at death after diagnosis in White, South Asian, and Black people. RESULTS: Dementia incidence was higher in Black people (incidence rate ratios [IRR] 1.22, 95% CI 1.15-1.30). South Asian and Black people with dementia had a younger age of death than White participants (mean difference for South Asian participants -2.97 years, (95% CI -3.41 to -2.53); and Black participants -2.66 years, (95% CI -3.08 to -2.24). DISCUSSION: South Asian and Black peoples' younger age of diagnosis and death means targeted prevention and care strategies for these groups should be prioritized and tailored to facilitate take-up.

Population pharmacokinetics and dose optimisation of colecalciferol in paediatric patients with chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is high in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, current dosing recommendations are based on limited pharmacokinetic (PK) data. This study aimed to develop a population PK model of colecalciferol that can be used to optimise colecalciferol dosing in this population. METHODS: Data from 83 children with CKD were used to develop a population PK model using a nonlinear mixed effects modelling approach. Serum creatinine and type of kidney disease (glomerular vs. nonglomerular disease) were investigated as covariates, and optimal dosing was determined based on achieving and maintaining 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration of 30-48 ng/mL. RESULTS: The time course of 25(OH)D concentrations was best described by a 1-compartment model with the addition of a basal concentration parameter to reflect endogenous 25(OH)D production from diet and sun exposure. Colecalciferol showed wide between-subject variability in its PK, with total body weight scaled allometrically the only covariate included in the model. Model-based simulations showed that current dosing recommendations for colecalciferol can be optimised using a weight-based dosing strategy. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to describe the population PK of colecalciferol in children with CKD. PK model informed dosing is expected to improve the attainment of target 25(OH)D concentrations, while minimising the risk of overdosing.

A feasibility study of a decision aid to support family carers of people with severe dementia or those towards the end-of-life.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning in dementia does not always happen. As dementia progresses, decisions are often left for family carers to make with professionals. AIM: To test the feasibility and acceptability of the delivery and use of a decision aid for family carers of people with severe dementia or towards the end-of-life. DESIGN: Feasibility study using a before-after design of a paper-based decision aid with family carers of people with severe dementia or towards the end-of-life. Criteria for whether to progress to full evaluation included achieving: 70% recruitment rate of target of 30 people, and retention of 70% at 6 months. Outcome measures at baseline, 3 and 6 months, included: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), EQ5D-5L and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life (SWC-EOLD). PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-eight family carers were recruited (93% of target), 26 completed baseline assessment and 20 (71%) of those were followed-up at 6 months. RESULTS: Almost all outcomes changed indicating improvement over 6 months. The DCS and K10 scores decreased indicating less decisional conflict and less psychological distress. The decision aid was acceptable, 25% found it very helpful and 55% a little helpful at 6 months. CONCLUSION: We met the success criteria demonstrating this study was feasible and acceptable to carers. Future research should test the effectiveness of the decision aid in a full scale evaluation.

Rapid development of a COVID-19 care planning decision-aid for family carers of people living with dementia.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected people living with dementia and their carers. Its effects on health and social care systems necessitated a rapid-response approach to care planning and decision-making in this population, with reflexivity and responsiveness to changing individual and system needs at its core. Considering this, a decision-aid to help families of persons with dementia was developed. OBJECTIVES: To coproduce with people living with dementia, and the people who care for them, a decision-aid for family carers of people living with dementia, to support decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken in 2020 with: (1) staff from two English national end-of-life and supportive care organizations; and (2) people living with dementia and family carers. Simultaneously, a rapid review of current evidence on making decisions with older people at the end of life was undertaken. Evidence from these inputs was combined to shape the decision-aid through a series of workshops with key stakeholders, including our patient and public involvement group, which consisted of a person living with dementia and family carers; a group of clinical and academic experts and a group of policy and charity leads. RESULTS: The rapid review of existing evidence highlighted the need to consider both process and outcome elements of decision-making and their effects on people living with dementia and their families. The qualitative interviews discussed a wide range of topics, including trust, agency and confusion in making decisions in the context of COVID-19. The decision-aid primarily focussed on care moves, legal matters, carer wellbeing and help-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Combining different sources and forms of evidence was a robust and systematic process that proved efficient and valuable in creating a novel decision-aid for family carers within the context of COVID-19. The output from this process is an evidence-based practical decision-aid coproduced with people living with dementia, family carers, clinical and academic experts and leading national dementia and palliative care organizations. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We worked with people living with dementia and family carers and other key stakeholders throughout this study, from study development and design to inclusion in stakeholder workshops and dissemination.

The Bidirectional Relationship between Vision and Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

TOPIC: Visual impairment (VI) and cognitive impairment (CIM) are prevalent age-related conditions that impose substantial burden on the society. Findings on the hypothesized bidirectional association of VI and CIM remains equivocal. Hence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine this bidirectional relationship. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Sixty percent risk of CIM has not been well elucidated in the literature. A bidirectional relationship between VI and CIM may support the development of strategies for early detection and management of risk factors for both conditions in older people. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central registers were searched systematically for observational studies, published from inception until April 6, 2020, in adults 40 years of age or older reporting objectively measured VI and CIM assessment using clinically validated cognitive screening tests or diagnostic evaluation. Meta-analyses on cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between VI and CIM outcomes (any CIM assessed using screening tests and clinically diagnosed dementia) were examined. Random effect models were used to generate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also examined study quality, publication bias, and heterogeneity. RESULTS: Forty studies were included (n = 47 913 570). Meta-analyses confirmed that persons with VI were more likely to have CIM, with significantly higher odds of: (1) any CIM (cross-sectional: OR, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.84-3.07]; longitudinal: OR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.46-1.89]) and (2) clinically diagnosed dementia (cross-sectional: OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.48-4.01]; longitudinal: OR, 2.09 [95% CI, 1.37-3.21]) compared with persons without VI. Significant heterogeneity was explained partially by differences in age, sex, and follow-up duration. Also, some evidence suggested that individuals with CIM, relative to cognitively intact persons, were more likely to have VI, with most articles (8/9 [89%]) reporting significantly positive associations; however, meta-analyses on this association could not be conducted because of insufficient data. DISCUSSION: Overall, our work suggests that VI is a risk factor of CIM, although further work is needed to confirm the association of CIM as a risk factor for VI. Strategies for early detection and management of both conditions in older people may minimize individual clinical and public health consequences.

Quality and use of unlicensed vitamin D preparations in primary care in England: Retrospective review of national prescription data and laboratory analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the type (licensed vs unlicensed) and cost of preparations used to fulfil vitamin D prescriptions in England over time, and to compare measured vitamin D content of selected vitamin D preparations against labelled claim. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of vitamin D prescription data in primary care in England (2008-2018). Laboratory analysis of 13 selected vitamin D preparations. RESULTS: Alongside a rise in the number of oral licensed colecalciferol preparations from 0 to 27 between 2012 and 2018, the proportion of vitamin D prescriptions in which licensed vitamin D preparations were supplied increased from 11.8 to 54.2%. However, the use of unlicensed food supplements (dose strength 400-50 000 IU) remained high, accounting for 39.7% of vitamin D prescriptions in 2018. The two licensed preparations showed mean (±SD) vitamin D content of 90.9 ± 0.7% and 90.5 ± 3.9% of the labelled claimed amount, meeting the British Pharmacopeia specification for licensed medicines (90-125% of labelled claim). The 11 food supplements showed vitamin D content ranging from 41.2 ± 10.6% to 165.3 ± 17.8% of the labelled claim, with eight of the preparations failing to comply with the food supplement specification (80-150% of labelled claim). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing availability of quality assured licensed preparations, food supplements continued to be used interchangeably with licensed preparations to fulfil vitamin D prescriptions. Food supplements, manufactured under less stringent quality standards, showed wide variations between measured and declared vitamin D content, which could lead to the risk of under- and over-dosing.

How do people living with dementia perceive eating and drinking difficulties? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Eating and drinking problems are common among people living with later-stage dementia, yet few studies have explored their perspectives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how people living with mild dementia understand possible future eating and drinking problems and their perspectives on assistance. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Community. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 people living with mild dementia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: (i) awareness of eating and drinking problems; (ii) food and drink representing an individual's identity and agency; (iii) delegating later decisions about eating and drinking to family carers; (iv) acceptability of eating and drinking options; and (v) eating and drinking towards the end of life. For people living with mild dementia, possible later eating and drinking problems could feel irrelevant and action may be postponed until they occur. Fears of being a burden to family and of being treated like a child may explain reluctance to discuss such future problems. People living with mild dementia might wish to preserve their agency and maintain good quality of life, rather than be kept alive at later stages by artificial nutrition and hydration. CONCLUSION: For people with mild dementia, eating and drinking problems may seem unrelated to them and so get left undiscussed. Negative connotations regarding eating and drinking problems may hinder the discussion. The optimal time to discuss possible future problems with eating and drinking with people with mild dementia may need an individual approach.

COVID-19 infection and attributable mortality in UK care homes: cohort study using active surveillance and electronic records (March-June 2020).

BACKGROUND: epidemiological data on COVID-19 infection in care homes are scarce. We analysed data from a large provider of long-term care for older people to investigate infection and mortality during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: cohort study of 179 UK care homes with 9,339 residents and 11,604 staff. We used manager-reported daily tallies to estimate the incidence of suspected and confirmed infection and mortality in staff and residents. Individual-level electronic health records from 8,713 residents were used to model risk factors for confirmed infection, mortality and estimate attributable mortality. RESULTS: 2,075/9,339 residents developed COVID-19 symptoms (22.2% [95% confidence interval: 21.4%; 23.1%]), while 951 residents (10.2% [9.6%; 10.8%]) and 585 staff (5.0% [4.7%; 5.5%]) had laboratory-confirmed infections. The incidence of confirmed infection was 152.6 [143.1; 162.6] and 62.3 [57.3; 67.5] per 100,000 person-days in residents and staff, respectively. Sixty-eight percent (121/179) of care homes had at least one COVID-19 infection or COVID-19-related death. Lower staffing ratios and higher occupancy rates were independent risk factors for infection.Out of 607 residents with confirmed infection, 217 died (case fatality rate: 35.7% [31.9%; 39.7%]). Mortality in residents with no direct evidence of infection was twofold higher in care homes with outbreaks versus those without (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.2 [1.8; 2.6]). CONCLUSIONS: findings suggest many deaths occurred in people who were infected with COVID-19, but not tested. Higher occupancy and lower staffing levels were independently associated with risks of infection. Protecting staff and residents from infection requires regular testing for COVID-19 and fundamental changes to staffing and care home occupancy.

Enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia.

BACKGROUND: The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study. MAIN RESULTS: We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence).  Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.

Life under lockdown and social restrictions - the experiences of people living with dementia and their carers during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on people living with dementia and their carers is an emerging focus of recent research determining how we can best support this population. People living with dementia have faced service curtailment, increased risk for COVID-19, as well as potential heightened deterioration. This study reports the experiences of people living with dementia and their family carers during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and the impact on them. METHODS: We recruited and remotely interviewed 30 people living with dementia in their own homes and 31 family carers, via video or telephone call in mid-2020. Data were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: People living with dementia often had a basic understanding of COVID-19 restrictions but could have difficulty translating this into personalised risk-appraisal of their own actions. Managing COVID-19 risks facing people living with dementia at home was largely done by family carers, exemplified by changes to living arrangements, which could strain or sustain caring relationships. Well-established familial caring relationships contributed to the wellbeing of the person living with dementia and their carer, as well as keeping to simple routines that included leaving the home for exercise and stimulation. People living with dementia reported some negative psychological and cognitive effects due to the imposed restrictions, such as increased apathy, irritability, or anxiety, which were fuelled by lack of social engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Structuring routine (remote) social interactions where possible could increase social engagement and improve wellbeing for people living with dementia, especially those with limited familial support in a post-COVID-19 context. As some care relationships had been restructured to manage COVID-19 risks, additional carer strain may emerge as a result of the impact on the independence of the person living with dementia and come to the attention of professionals in health and care services. People living with dementia and their carers highlighted the importance of maintaining or adapting routines which may be useful learning for professionals, although additional support may be necessary for those who are impacted by more severe or worsening symptoms of dementia.

A decision aid to support family carers of people living with dementia towards the end-of-life: Coproduction process, outcome and reflections.

BACKGROUND: Family carers of people living with dementia often need support with making decisions about care. Many find end-of-life care decisions particularly difficult. The aim of this article is to present an evidence- and theoretical-based process for developing a decision aid to support family carers of people with dementia towards the end-of-life. METHODS: Following a systematic process, we developed a decision aid using coproduction methods and matrices to synthesize data from a systematic review and qualitative interviews with people living with dementia and family carers. Data were presented to coproduction workshops of people living with dementia, family carers, practitioners and professionals. Development was guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and a modified Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making model. RESULTS: The decision aid covers four decision areas: (1) changes in care; (2) eating and drinking difficulties; (3) everyday well-being; and (4) healthcare, tests and medication. We present an interactive decision aid, using a variety of approaches including written text, Frequently Asked Questions, top tips and illustrative quotes from people living with dementia and family carers. CONCLUSION: This is the first decision aid that focusses on multiple decisions towards the end-of-life in dementia care. The process offers a template for others to develop decision aids or similar interventions, and how to include people living with dementia in coproduction. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Family carers provided feedback on data collection, data analysis and the decision aid, and one is a coauthor. People living with dementia and family carers were integral to the coproduction workshops.

How does the sexual, physical and mental health of young adults not in education, employment or training (NEET) compare to workers and students?

BACKGROUND: Syndemic theory highlights the potential for health problems to interact synergistically, compounding impact. Young adults not in education, employment or training (NEET) are more likely to experience disadvantage and poorer general health outcomes. However, there is little research on their sexual health, or the extent to which this clusters with mental and physical health outcomes. METHODS: Analysis of data from 16 to 24 year olds (1729 men, 2140 women) interviewed 2010-12 for Britain's third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. Natsal-3 is a national probability sample survey using computer-assisted personal interviewing with computer-assisted self-interviewing. Participants were classified as workers, students or NEET. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between being NEET (relative to worker or student) and risk behaviours and outcomes in physical, sexual and mental health domains. We then examined how risk behaviours and poor health outcomes cluster within and across domains. RESULTS: 15% men and 20% women were NEET; 36% men and 32% women were workers; and 49% men and 48% women were students. Young people who were NEET were more likely to report smoking and drug use (men) than other young people. There were few differences in sexual health, although NEETs were more likely to report condomless sex, and NEET women, unplanned pregnancy (past year). Risk behaviours clustered more within and across domains for NEET men. Among NEET women, poor health outcomes clustered across mental, physical and sexual health domains. CONCLUSIONS: Harmful health behaviours (men) and poor health outcomes (women) clustered more in those who are NEET. This points to a possible syndemic effect of NEET status on general ill health, especially for women. Our paper is novel in highlighting that elevated risk pertains to sexual as well as mental and physical health.

Implementing post diagnostic dementia care in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Concentrating post-diagnostic dementia care in primary care may lead to better and more cost-effective care closer to home. We aimed to assess which intervention components and contextual factors may contribute to the successful delivery and implementation of primary care-led post-diagnostic dementia care. METHODS: Mixed-methods systematic review. We searched five databases (inception-March 2019) with reference list screening and citation tracking. We included studies evaluating post-diagnostic dementia care interventions where primary care had a significant role in dementia care, which assessed one or more implementation elements (acceptability, feasibility, adoption, sustainability, reach, costs, appropriateness or fidelity). Two authors independently critically appraised studies. RESULTS: Out of 4528 unique references, we screened 380 full texts and included 49 evaluations of services collecting implementation process data. Most services had high acceptability ratings. The most acceptable components were information provision, social and emotional support and links to community organisations. Feasibility was chiefly influenced by provider engagement and leadership, building dementia care capacity, sufficient resources/funding and collaboration. Care quality was maximised through adding capacity from a dementia-specific health professional. On the basis of limited data, costs for various primary care-led models did not substantially differ from each other. CONCLUSION: A range of primary care-led dementia care models appear feasible and acceptable. Future services should: add dementia-focussed health professionals into primary care, develop primary care leadership and provide sufficient funding and collaboration opportunities. Information, community service links and social and ongoing support should be part of services. Further exploration of service reach and formalised fidelity assessment are needed.

Nutrition and hydration for people living with dementia near the end of life: A qualitative systematic review.

AIMS: To synthesize the qualitative evidence of the views and experiences of people living with dementia, family carers, and practitioners on practice related to nutrition and hydration of people living with dementia who are nearing end of life. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: Databases were searched for qualitative studies from January 2000-February 2020. Quantitative studies, or studies reporting on biological mechanisms, assessments, scales or diagnostic tools were excluded. Results were synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included; 15 explored the views of practitioners working with people living with dementia in long-term care settings or in hospitals. Four themes were developed: challenges of supporting nutrition and hydration; balancing the views of all parties involved with 'the right thing to do'; national context and sociocultural influences; and strategies to support nutrition and hydration near the end of life in dementia. CONCLUSION: The complexity of supporting nutrition and hydration near the end of life for someone living with dementia relates to national context, lack of knowledge, and limited planning while the person can communicate. IMPACT: This review summarizes practitioners and families' experiences and highlights the need to include people living with dementia in studies to help understand their views and preferences about nutrition and hydration near the end of life; and those of their families supporting them in the community. The review findings are relevant to multidisciplinary teams who can learn from strategies to help with nutrition and hydration decisions and support.

How to increase chlamydia testing in primary care: a qualitative exploration with young people and application of a meta-theoretical model.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore young people's perspectives barriers to chlamydia testing in general practice and potential intervention functions and implementation strategies to overcome identified barriers, using a meta-theoretical framework (the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW)). METHODS: Twenty-eight semistructured individual interviews were conducted with 16-24 year olds from across the UK. Purposive and convenience sampling methods were used (eg, youth organisations, charities, online platforms and chain-referrals). An inductive thematic analysis was first conducted, followed by thematic categorisation using the BCW. RESULTS: Participants identified several barriers to testing: conducting self-sampling inaccurately (physical capability); lack of information and awareness (psychological capability); testing not seen as a priority and perceived low risk (reflective motivation); embarrassment, fear and guilt (automatic motivation); the UK primary care context and location of toilets (physical opportunity) and stigma (social opportunity). Potential intervention functions raised by participants included education (eg, increase awareness of chlamydia); persuasion (eg, use of imagery/data to alter beliefs); environmental restructuring (eg, alternative sampling methods) and modelling (eg, credible sources such as celebrities). Potential implementation strategies and policy categories discussed were communication and marketing (eg, social media); service provision (eg, introduction of a young person's health-check) and guidelines (eg, standard questions for healthcare providers). CONCLUSIONS: The BCW provided a useful framework for conceptually exploring the wide range of barriers to testing identified and possible intervention functions and policy categories to overcome said barriers. While greater education and awareness and expanded opportunities for testing were considered important, this alone will not bring about dramatic increases in testing. A societal and structural shift towards the normalisation of chlamydia testing is needed, alongside approaches which recognise the heterogeneity of this population. To ensure optimal and inclusive healthcare, researchers, clinicians and policy makers alike must consider patient diversity and the wider health issues affecting all young people.