RESUMEN
Introduction: Mental health conditions are associated with cognition and physical function in older adults. We examined whether worry and ruminative brooding, key symptoms of certain mental health conditions, are related to subjective and/or objective measures of cognitive and physical (cardiovascular) health. Methods: We used baseline data from 282 participants from the SCD-Well and Age-Well trials (178 female; agemean = 71.1 years). We measured worry and ruminative brooding using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and the Ruminative Response Scale-brooding subscale. We assessed subjective physical health using the WHOQOL-Bref physical subscale, and objective physical health via blood pressure and modified versions of the Framingham Risk Score and Charlson Comorbidity Index. With subjective and objective cognition, we utilized the Cognitive Difficulties Scale and a global composite (modified Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite, PACC5, with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV, category fluency, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2, and either the California Verbal Learning Test or the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test). We conducted linear regressions, adjusted for education, age, sex and cohort. Results: Worry and ruminative brooding were negatively associated with subjective physical health (worry: ß = -0.245, 95%CI -0.357 to -0.133, p < 0.001; ruminative brooding: ß = -0.224, 95%CI -0.334 to -0.113, p < 0.001) and subjective cognitive difficulties (worry: ß = 0.196, 95%CI 0.091 to 0.302, p < 0.001; ruminative brooding: ß = 0.239, 95%CI 0.133 to 0.346, p < 0.001). We did not observe associations between worry or ruminative brooding and any measure of objective health. Discussion: Worry and ruminative brooding may be common mechanisms associated with subjective but not objective health. Alternatively, cognitively unimpaired older adults may become aware of subtle changes not captured by objective measures used in this study. Interventions reducing worry and ruminative brooding may promote subjective physical and cognitive health; however, more research is needed to determine causality of the relationships.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes, and are supported to do so by family carers and homecare workers. There are concerns that homecare is often unable to meet the needs of this client group, with limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve it for people living with dementia. We have developed a training and support programme for homecare workers (NIDUS-Professional) to be delivered alongside support sessions for people living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). We aim to assess (1) its acceptability among homecare workers and employing agencies, and (2) the feasibility of homecare workers, people living with dementia and their family carers completing the outcomes of intervention in a future randomised controlled trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, multisite feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 60-90 homecare workers, 30-60 clients living with dementia and their family carers through 6-9 English homecare agencies. In the intervention arm, homecare staff will be offered six group sessions on video call over three months, followed by monthly group sessions over the subsequent three-month period. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and at six months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval on 7 January 2020 from the Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee. Study reference: 19/LO/1667. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentation and blog to research and clinical audiences; we will attend forums to present findings to participating homecare agencies and their clients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15757555.