The influence of the down- and upscaling of activities in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 visitor ban on caregivers' exhaustion and ability to provide care and support: A questionnaire study.

In the Netherlands, a national visitor-ban was in place in LTCFs during the first outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. Meaningful activities were cancelled or downscaled, while others were performed more often. It is known that a lack of activities has several negative effects on residents, while the impact on caregivers remains largely unexplored. Here we investigate the influence of the down- and upscaling of activities on caregivers' physical and emotional exhaustion and their perceived ability to provide care and support. Downscaling of activities for residents, in particular watching television and musical activities, had a negative impact on caregivers' emotional exhaustion. The downscaling of watching television increased caregivers 'physical exhaustion. Furthermore, the downscaling of both activities had a negative impact on caregivers' perceived ability to provide ADL care and emotional support. This study triggers the need for more knowledge about the function of meaningful activities for residents, from a LTCF caregivers' perspective.

Involvement, worries and loneliness of family caregivers of people with dementia during the COVID-19 visitor ban in long-term care facilities.

To prevent COVID-19 from spreading in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), the Dutch government took restrictive measures, including a visitor-ban in LTCFs. This study examined the relationship between involvement of family caregivers (FCs) of people with dementia (PwD) living in LTCFs and FCs mental health during the visitor-ban, and whether this relationship was moderated by the frequency of alternative contact with PwD during the visitor-ban and FC resilience. This cross-sectional study collected data from 958 FCs. FCs who visited PwD more frequently before, were more worried during the visitor-ban than those with lower visiting frequency. FCs who visited the PwD daily before, but had minimal weekly contact during the visitor-ban, worried less. Resilient FCs who did social and task-related activities before, experienced less loneliness during the visitor-ban. It is advisable for healthcare professionals to reach out to these groups, to facilitate ongoing contact and help them overcome their loneliness.

Differences in sociodemographic, drug use and health characteristics between never, former and current injecting, problematic hard-drug users in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Injecting drug users are at increased risk for harmful effects compared to non-injecting drug users. Some studies have focused on differences in characteristics between these two groups (e.g., housing, overall health). However, no study has investigated the specific Dutch situation which in the last years has seen a decrease in homelessness among problematic hard-drug users and an increasing focus on physical health in low-threshold addiction care. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in sociodemographic, drug use and health characteristics between never-injecting (NIDUs), former-injecting (FIDUs) and current-injecting drug users (IDUs) and describe injecting practices. METHODS: A total of 202 problematic hard-drug users (NIDU = 64; FIDU = 76; IDU = 62) were recruited from 22 low-threshold care facilities, including drug consumption rooms, methadone maintenance treatment, heroin-assisted therapy, day shelter and/or night shelter, supported housing and day activity centres. Data were collected on-site through structured face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Results indicate that IDUs represented a separate group of problematic hard-drug users, with distinct sociodemographic and drug use characteristics. Overall, IDUs appeared to be the group with least favourable characteristics (unstable housing/homelessness, illegal activities, polydrug use) and NIDUs appeared to have the most favourable characteristics (stable housing, help with debts, less polydrug use). The FIDU group lies somewhere in between. The three groups did not differ significantly in terms of health. Regarding injecting practices, results showed that majority of IDUs had injected drugs for over 10 years and IDUs injected heroin, cocaine, amphetamine and/or methadone in the past 6 months. Sharing syringes was not common. A quarter reported public injecting. CONCLUSIONS: Unstable housing and homelessness are related to (former) injecting drug use, and stable housing is related to never-injecting drug use. Our study suggests that the number of 'new' IDUs is low. However, public injecting among IDUs is not uncommon and is associated with unstable housing. This emphasizes the potential of housing projects as a component of harm reduction measures. Therefore, prevention of (risks associated with) injecting drug use and supported housing programmes for problematic hard-drug users deserve the continuous attention of policymakers and professionals in low-threshold addiction care.