Attitudes to long-term care in India: a secondary mixed-methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: India is the world's most populous country, and overseas Indians the world's largest diaspora. Many of the more than 1·4 million UK-based Indians will be providing care at a distance for parents living in India. Globalisation has contributed to a shift in India from traditional joint family systems to more nuclear structures. We investigated how commonly Indian parents consider and use long-term care facilities and attitudes to their use. METHODS: We did a secondary mixed-methods statistical analysis of the LASI (Longitudinal Ageing Study in India), a national, cross-sectional household survey administered in 2017-18 to 73 396 randomly selected adults aged 45 years and older in all Indian states and Union Territories (42 261 [58%] women, 31 135 [42%] men). We report the proportion and sociodemographic predictors of respondents' parent(s) living in a care home. We also did a secondary thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews from the Moving Pictures India Study, exploring attitudes to long-term care in 2022. These interviews included 19 carers (nine [47%] women; age range 31-79 years) for people with dementia and 25 professionals (19 [76%] women; age range 24-56 years) purposively selected for diversity from networks of the team based at a Bangalore hospital, India. FINDINGS: 24 LASI participants reported that their parent was living in a long-term care facility (father [n=8], mother [n=15], both parents [n=1]). Although rare overall, use and consideration of use of long-term care were more frequently reported in urban areas (n=14, 58%), by people in middle-income quintiles (n=17, 71%) with higher levels of education (n=7, 29%), who rated their health as good or very good (n=15, 63%). The themes identified in qualitative interviews were the use of long-term care facilities as a last resort, social expectations, and limited availability of long-term care facilities. INTERPRETATION: Although interviews were only conducted in Bangalore and respondents could misrepresent living arrangements due to ongoing societal stigma, the data show that very few people reside in old age homes across India, with strong preference towards intergenerational and community care. With the UK home to a growing diaspora of nuclear Indian families, our findings illustrate the contexts in which they provide care at a distance, navigating cross-cultural attitudes and social norms around long-term care. FUNDING: Alzheimer's Association US.

Attitudes to long-term care in India: A secondary, mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVES: In India, globalisation is purported to have contributed to shifting family structures and changing attitudes to long-term care (LTC) facility use. We investigated the attitudes to and usage frequency of LTC in India. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of: (a) The Moving Pictures India Project qualitative interviews with 19 carers for people with dementia and 25 professionals, collected in 2022, exploring attitudes to LTC; and (b) The Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) 2017-2018, cross-sectional survey of a randomised probability sample of Indian adults aged 45+ living in private households. RESULTS: We identified three themes from qualitative data: (1) LTC as a last resort, describes how LTC could be acceptable if care at home was "impossible" due to the person's medical condition or unavailability of the family carer, for example, if family members lived overseas or interstate. (2) Social expectations of care at home from family members and paid carers and; (3) Limited availability of LTC facilities in India, especially in rural localities, and the financial barriers to their use. Of 73,396 LASI participants, 40 were considering moving to LTC; 18,281 had a parent alive, of whom 9 reported that their father, and 16 that their mother, lived in LTC. LTC use was rare. While a third of participants with a living parent lived in urban areas, 14/24 of those with a parent in LTC lived in an urban area, supporting our qualitative findings that LTC is mainly accessed in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Preference for intergenerational community care combined with limited availability and societal stigma contribute to low rates of LTC use among Indian families. Future social policies should consider how to plan for greater equity in strengthening care at home and in the community, and bolstering respite and LTC services as a last resort.

Feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-professional, a training and support intervention for homecare workers caring for clients living with dementia: a cluster-randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: In the first randomised controlled trial of a dementia training and support intervention in UK homecare agencies, we aimed to assess: acceptability of our co-designed, manualised training, delivered by non-clinical facilitators; outcome completion feasibility; and costs for a future trial. METHODS: This cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, feasibility trial involved English homecare agencies. Intervention arm agency staff were offered group videocall sessions: 6 over 3 months, then monthly for 3 months (NIDUS-professional). Family carers (henceforth carers) and clients with dementia (dyads) were offered six to eight complementary, individual intervention sessions (NIDUS-Family). We collected potential trial measures as secondary outcomes remotely at baseline and 6 months: HCW (homecare worker) Work-related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Sense of Competence (SoC); proxy-rated Quality of Life (QOL), Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Homecare Satisfaction (HCS). RESULTS: From December 2021 to September 2022, we met agency (4 intervention, 2 control) and HCWs (n = 62) recruitment targets and recruited 16 carers and 16/60 planned clients. We met a priori progression criteria for adherence (≥4/6 sessions: 29/44 [65.9%,95% confidence interval (CI): 50.1,79.5]), HCW or carer proxy-outcome completion (15/16 (93.8% [69.8,99.8]) and proceeding with adaptation for HCWs outcome completion (46/63 (73.0% [CI: 60.3,83.4]). Delivery of NIDUS-Professional costs was £6,423 (£137 per eligible client). WRSI scores decreased and SoC increased at follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. For intervention arm proxy-rated outcomes, carer-rated QOL increased, HCW-rated was unchanged; carer and HCW-rated NPI decreased; DAD decreased (greater disability) and HCS was unchanged. CONCLUSION: A pragmatic trial is warranted; we will consider using aggregated, agency-level client outcomes, including neuropsychiatric symptoms.

A process evaluation of the NIDUS-Professional dementia training intervention for UK homecare workers.

INTRODUCTION: This process evaluation was conducted in parallel to the randomised controlled feasibility trial of NIDUS-Professional, a manualised remote dementia training intervention for homecare workers (HCWs), delivered alongside an individualised intervention for clients living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). The process evaluation reports on: (i) intervention reach, dose and fidelity; (ii) contexts influencing agency engagement and (iii) alignment of findings with theoretical assumptions about how the intervention might produce change. METHODS: We report proportions of eligible HCWs receiving any intervention (reach), number of sessions attended (dose; attending ≥4/6 main sessions was predefined as adhering), intervention fidelity and adherence of clients and carers to NIDUS-Family (attending all 6-8 planned sessions). We interviewed HCWs, managers, family carers and facilitators. We integrated and thematically analysed, at the homecare agency level, qualitative interview and intervention recording data. RESULTS: 32/141 (23%) of eligible HCWs and 7/42 (17%) of family carers received any intervention; most who did adhered to the intervention (89% and 71%). Intervention fidelity was high. We analysed interviews with 20/44 HCWs, 3/4 managers and 3/7 family carers, as well as intervention recordings involving 32/44 HCWs. All agencies reported structural challenges in supporting intervention delivery. Agencies with greater management buy-in had higher dose and reach. HCWs valued NIDUS-Professional for enabling group reflection and peer support, providing practical, actionable care strategies and increasing their confidence as practitioners. CONCLUSION: NIDUS-Professional was valued by HCWs. Agency management, culture and priorities were key barriers to implementation; we discuss how to address these in a future trial.

Process evaluation of a New psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-Family).

INTRODUCTION: We report a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within a randomised controlled trial. We aimed to test and refine a theory of change model hypothesising key causal assumptions to understand how the New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-Family (a manualised, multimodal psychosocial intervention), was effective relative to usual care, on the primary outcome of Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) over 1 year. METHODS: In 2021-2022, intervention-arm dyads completed an acceptability questionnaire developed to test causal assumptions. We conducted qualitative interviews with dyads and intervention facilitators, purposively selected for diverse follow-up GAS scores. We collected observational data from intervention session recordings. We thematically analysed data, then integrated qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: 174/204 (85.3%) dyads allocated to NIDUS-Family, fully completed it, 18 partially completed, while 12 received no intervention. We interviewed 27/192 (14%) of dyads receiving any sessions, and 9/10 facilitators; and observed 12 sessions. 47/192 (24.5%) of carers completed the acceptability questionnaire. We identified four themes: (A) 'Someone to talk to helps dyads feel supported'; (B) 'NIDUS-Family helps carers change their perspective'; (C) 'Personalisation helps people living with dementia maintain their identity' and (D) 'Small steps help dyads move forward'. CONCLUSION: Key causal pathway mechanisms were: a respectful, trusting and impartial relationship with the facilitator: supporting the development of meaningful goals and support to find manageable solutions. Core implementation factors were delivery of the modules from a consistent facilitator across regular sessions. Core contextual factors influencing these mechanisms were dyadic participation and understanding of abilities.

A systematic review of process evaluations for psychosocial interventions designed to improve the wellbeing and quality of life of community-dwelling people with dementia and their carers.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial interventions improve the wellbeing and quality of life of People Living with Dementia (PLWD) and their family carers; but due to their complexity it can be challenging to identify mechanisms of action. We reviewed process evaluations that have sought to elucidate how these interventions work, to inform their implementation. METHOD: We systematically reviewed process evaluations of studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for PLWD in their own home and/or their family carers. We rated study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We described, with reference to Medical Research Council (2015) process evaluation guidance, how implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors were investigated; and describe commonalities in the mechanisms of action identified across studies. RESULTS: Twenty four included studies evaluated the processes of 22 interventions. These studies collectively applied five frameworks; almost all frameworks' advised evaluations were theory-based and used mixed-methods analyses, but only 5/24 evaluation designs were informed by the intervention theory and 8/24 used mixed methods. 8/24 evaluations considered contextual factors in their design, though 20/24 cited contextual factors in findings. Interventions were more successful where PLWD were motivated and aware of potential benefits, and when carers could support engagement and were themselves supported by the intervention. How the intervention aligned with participants' current needs and stage of dementia were key influencing factors. CONCLUSION: Knowing how interventions can influence change for community-dwelling people with dementia and their family carer's will improve translation of trial findings into practice. Robust, theory-driven process evaluations can enable this.

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a goal-focused manualised intervention to support people with dementia to stay living independently at home with support from family carers: NIDUS (New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study) Family.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-Family, a 6-8 session manualised, individually tailored, modular intervention supporting independence at home for people with dementia; and explore participants' and facilitators' experiences of the intervention. METHOD: In this single group multi-site feasibility study, trained, supervised non-clinically qualified graduates (facilitators) delivered NIDUS-Family to family carer and people living with dementia dyads. We recruited participants from GP practices and memory services in London and Bradford. We completed quantitative outcomes pre- and post-intervention; and conducted qualitative interviews with participants and facilitators. Our pre-specified main outcomes were proportion of potential participants approached who agreed to participate, intervention adherence and acceptability to family carers, and facilitator fidelity to the manual. RESULTS: We recruited 16 dyads (57% of those approached); 12 (75%) completed the intervention. Of 12 participants rating intervention acceptability, 9 (75%) agreed or strongly agreed that it had helped; 2 (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed and 1 (8%) disagreed. Mean facilitator fidelity was high (81.5%). Dyads set on average 3.9 goals; these most commonly related to getting out and about and increasing activity/hobby participation (n = 10); carer wellbeing (n = 6), managing physical complaints (n = 6); meal preparation/cooking (n = 5); and reducing irritability, frustration or aggression (n = 5). Almost all secondary outcomes changed in a direction indicating improvement. In our qualitative analysis we identified three overarching themes; relationships facilitate change, goal-focused versus manualised approach and balancing the needs of carers and people with dementia. CONCLUSION: NIDUS-Family was feasible and acceptable to participants. Following refinements, testing in a pragmatic trial is underway.

Measuring the quality of life of family carers of people with dementia: development and validation of C-DEMQOL.

PURPOSE: We aimed to address gaps identified in the evidence base and instruments available to measure the quality of life (QOL) of family carers of people with dementia, and develop a new brief, reliable, condition-specific instrument. METHODS: We generated measurable domains and indicators of carer QOL from systematic literature reviews and qualitative interviews with 32 family carers and 9 support staff, and two focus groups with 6 carers and 5 staff. Statements with five tailored response options, presenting variation on the QOL continuum, were piloted (n = 25), pre-tested (n = 122) and field-tested (n = 300) in individual interviews with family carers from North London and Sussex. The best 30 questions formed the C-DEMQOL questionnaire, which was evaluated for usability, face and construct validity, reliability and convergent/discriminant validity using a range of validation measures. RESULTS: C-DEMQOL was received positively by the carers. Factor analysis confirmed that C-DEMQOL sum scores are reliable in measuring overall QOL (ω = 0.97) and its five subdomains: 'meeting personal needs' (ω = 0.95); 'carer wellbeing' (ω = 0.91); 'carer-patient relationship' (ω = 0.82); 'confidence in the future' (ω = 0.90) and 'feeling supported' (ω = 0.85). The overall QOL and domain scores show the expected pattern of convergent and discriminant relationships with established measures of carer mental health, activities and dementia severity and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The robust psychometric properties support the use of C-DEMQOL in evaluation of overall and domain-specific carer QOL; replications in independent samples and studies of responsiveness would be of value.

Setting individualised goals for people living with dementia and their family carers: A systematic review of goal-setting outcome measures and their psychometric properties.

BACKGROUND: Individualised goal-setting outcome measures can be a useful way of reflecting people living with dementia and family carers' differing priorities regarding quality-of-life domains in the highly heterogeneous symptomatology of the disease. Evaluating goal-setting measures is challenging, and there is limited evidence for their psychometric properties. AIM: (1) To describe what goal-setting outcomes have been used in this population; (2) To evaluate their validity, reliability, and feasibility in RCTs. METHOD: We systematically reviewed studies that utilised goal-setting outcome measures for people living dementia or their family carers. We adapted a risk of bias and quality rating system based on the COSMIN guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties of outcomes when used within RCTs. RESULTS: Thirty studies meeting inclusion criteria used four different goal-setting outcome measures: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Bangor Goal Setting Interview (BGSI), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Individually Prioritized Problems Assessment (IPPA); other papers have reported study-specific goal-setting attainment systems. Only GAS has been used as an outcome over periods greater than 9 months (up to a year). Within RCTs there was moderate quality evidence for sufficient content validity and construct validity for GAS, COPM and the BGSI. Reliability was only assessed in one RCT (using BGSI); in which two raters reviewed interview transcripts to rate goals with excellent inter-rater reliability. Feasibility was reported as good across the measures with a low level of missing data. CONCLUSION: We found moderate quality evidence for good content and construct validity and feasibility of GAS, BGSI and COPM. While more evidence of reliability of these measures is needed, we recommend that future trials consider using individualised goal setting measures, to report the effect of interventions on outcomes that are most meaningful to people living with dementia and their families.

Personalized goals of people living with dementia and family carers: A content analysis of goals set within an individually tailored psychosocial intervention trial.

Introduction: Person-centered goals capture individual priorities in personal contexts. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) has been used in drug trials involving people living with dementia (PLWD) but GAS has been characterized as difficult to incorporate into trials and clinical practice. We used GAS in a trial of New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-family, a manualized care and support intervention, as the primary outcome and to tailor the interventions to goals set. We aimed to assess the feasibility and content of baseline goal-setting. Methods: We developed training for nonclinical facilitators to set individualized GAS goals remotely with PLWD and family carer dyads, or carers alone, in the intervention trial, during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative content analysis of the goals set explored participants' priorities and unmet needs, to consider how existing GAS goal domains might be extended in a psychosocial intervention trial context. Results: Eleven facilitators were successfully trained to set and score GAS goals. A total of 313/328 (95%) participants were able to collaboratively set three to five goals with the facilitators. Of these, 302 randomized participating dyads set 1043 (mean 3.5, range 3 to 5) goals. We deductively coded 719 (69%) goals into five existing GAS domains (mood, behavior, self-care, cognition, and instrumental activities of daily living); 324 (31%) goals were inductively coded into four new domains: carer break, carer mood, carer behavior, and carer sleep. The most frequently set goals pertained to social support. There was little variation in types of goals set based on the context of who set them or level of pandemic restrictions in place. Discussion: It is feasible for people without clinical training to set GAS holistic goals for PLWD and family carers in the community. GAS has potential to facilitate personalization of care and support interventions, such as NIDUS-family, and facilitate the roll out of more personalized care. Highlights: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) can capture meaningful priorities of people with dementia and their family carers.A psychosocial intervention RCT used GAS as the primary outcome measure and goals were set collaboratively by non-clinically trained facilitators.The findings underscore the feasibility of using GAS as an outcome measure with this population.The content analysis findings unveiled the diversity in experiences and priorities of the study participants.GAS has the potential to support the implementation of more person-centred approaches to dementia care.

Pre-implementation planning for a new personalised, dementia post-diagnostic support intervention: exploring the perspective of professional stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Only a third of people with dementia receive a diagnosis and post-diagnostic support. An eight session, manualised, modular post-diagnostic support system (New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS) - family), delivered remotely by non-clinical facilitators is the first scalable intervention to improve personalised goal attainment for people with dementia. It could significantly improve care quality. AIMS: We aimed to explore system readiness for NIDUS-family, a scalable, personalised post-diagnostic support intervention. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with professionals from dementia care services; the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided interviews and their thematic analysis. RESULTS: From 2022 to 2023, we interviewed a purposive sample of 21 professionals from seven English National Health Service, health and social care services. We identified three themes: (1) potential value of a personalised intervention - interviewees perceived the capacity for choice and supporting person-centred care as relative advantages over existing resources; (2) compatibility and deliverability with existing systems - the NIDUS-family intervention model was perceived as compatible with service goals and clients' needs, but current service infrastructures, financing and commissioning briefs constraining resources to those at greatest need were seen as barriers to providing universal, post-diagnostic care; (3) fit with current workforce skills - the intervention model aligned well with staff development plans; delivery by non-clinically qualified staff was considered an advantage over current care options. CONCLUSIONS: Translating evidence for scalable and effective post-diagnostic care into practice will support national policies to widen access to support and upskill support workers, but requires a greater focus on prevention in commissioning briefs and resource planning.

A psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family) versus goal setting and routine care: a single-masked, phase 3, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although national guidelines recommend that everyone with dementia receives personalised post-diagnostic support, few do. Unlike previous interventions that improved personalised outcomes in people with dementia, the NIDUS-Family intervention is fully manualised and deliverable by trained and supervised, non-clinical facilitators. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family in supporting the attainment of personalised goals set by people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: We did a two-arm, single-masked, multi-site, randomised, clinical trial recruiting patient-carer dyads from community settings. We randomly assigned dyads to either home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family or goal setting and routine care (control). Randomisation was blocked and stratified by site (2:1; intervention to control), with allocations assigned via a remote web-based system. NIDUS-Family is tailored to goals set by dyads by selecting modules involving behavioural interventions, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills, enablement, and environmental adaptations. The intervention involved six to eight video-call or telephone sessions (or in person when COVID-19-related restrictions allowed) over 6 months, then telephone follow-ups every 2-3 months for 6 months. The primary outcome was carer-rated goal attainment scaling (GAS) score at 12 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11425138. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2021, we assessed 1083 potential dyads for eligibility, 781 (72·1%) of whom were excluded. Of 302 eligible dyads, we randomly assigned 98 (32·4%) to the control group and 204 (67·5%) to the intervention group. The mean age of participants with dementia was 79·9 years (SD 8·2), 169 (56%) were women, and 133 (44%) were men. 247 (82%) dyads completed the primary outcome, which favoured the intervention (mean GAS score at 12 months 58·7 [SD 13·0; n=163] vs 49·0 [14·1; n=84]; adjusted difference in means 10·23 [95% CI 5·75-14·71]; p<0·001). 31 (15·2%) participants in the intervention group and 14 (14·3%) in the control group experienced serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, NIDUS-Family is the first readily scalable intervention for people with dementia and their family carers that improves attainment of personalised goals. We therefore recommend that it be implemented in health and care services. FUNDING: UK Alzheimer's Society.

Non-clinically trained facilitators' experiences of remote psychosocial interventions for older adults with memory loss and their family carers.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is the seventh leading cause of global mortality, with cases increasing. Psychosocial interventions might help prevent dementia and improve quality of life. Although it is cost-effective for non-clinically trained staff to deliver these, concerns are raised and little is known about the resulting impact on staff, especially for remote interventions. AIMS: To explore how non-clinically trained facilitators experienced delivering remote, one-to-one and group-based psychosocial interventions with older adults with memory loss and their family carers, under training and supervision. METHOD: We conducted a secondary thematic analysis of interviews with non-clinically trained facilitators, employed by universities, the National Health Service and third-sector organisations, who facilitated either of two manualised interventions: the APPLE-Tree group dementia prevention for people with mild memory loss or the NIDUS-Family one-to-one dyadic intervention for people living with dementia and their family carers. RESULTS: The overarching theme of building confidence in developing therapeutic relationships was explained with subthemes that described the roles of positioning expertise (subtheme 1), developing clinical skills (subtheme 2), peer support (subtheme 3) in enabling this process and remote delivery as a potential barrier to it (subtheme 4). CONCLUSIONS: Non-clinically trained facilitators can have positive experiences delivering remote psychosocial interventions with older adults. Differences in life experience could compound initial fears of being 'in at the deep end' and 'exposed' as lacking expertise. Fears were allayed by experiencing positive therapeutic relationships and outcomes, and by growing confidence. For this to happen, appropriate training and supervision is needed, alongside accounting for the challenges of remote delivery.

Time to reflect is a rare and valued opportunity; a pilot of the NIDUS-professional dementia training intervention for homecare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Most people living with dementia want to continue living in their own home for as long as possible and many rely on support from homecare services to do so. There are concerns that homecare often fails to meet the needs of clients with dementia, but there is limited evidence regarding effective interventions to improve its delivery for this client group. We aimed to assess whether a co-designed, 6-session dementia training intervention for homecare workers (NIDUS-professional) was acceptable and feasible. Facilitated training sessions were delivered over 3 months, followed by 3, monthly implementation meetings to embed changes in practice. Two trained and supervised facilitators without clinical qualifications delivered the intervention via group video-calls during Oct 2020-March 2021 to a group of seven homecare workers from one agency in England. Participants provided qualitative feedback 3- and 6-months post intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis. Adherence to the intervention and fidelity of delivery were high, indicating that it was acceptable and feasible to deliver in practice. Thirty of a possible 42 (71.4%) group sessions were attended. In our thematic analysis we report one over-arching theme: 'Having time and space to reflect is a rare opportunity'. Within this we identified four subthemes (Having time to reflect is a rare opportunity; Reflecting with peers enhances learning; Reflection and perspective taking can improve care; Recognising skills and building confidence) through which we explored how participants valued the intervention to discuss their work and learn new skills. Attendance was lower for the implementation sessions, perhaps reflecting participants' lack of clarity about their purpose. We used our findings to consider how we can maintain positive impacts of the manualised sessions, so that these are translated into tangible, scalable benefits for people living with dementia and the homecare workforce. A randomised feasibility trial is underway.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months. METHODS: A randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator. DISCUSSION: Increasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

Social connectedness and dementia prevention: Pilot of the APPLE-Tree video-call intervention during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Covid-19 pandemic reduced access to social activities and routine health care that are central to dementia prevention. We developed a group-based, video-call, cognitive well-being intervention; and investigated its acceptability and feasibility; exploring through participants' accounts how the intervention was experienced and used in the pandemic context. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD: We recruited adults aged 60+ years with memory concerns (without dementia). Participants completed baseline assessments and qualitative interviews/focus groups before and after the 10-week intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis. RESULTS: 12/17 participants approached completed baseline assessments, attended 100/120 (83.3%) intervention sessions and met 140/170 (82.4%) of goals set. Most had not used video calling before. In the thematic analysis, our overarching theme was social connectedness. Three sub-themes were as follows: Retaining independence and social connectedness: social connectedness could not be at the expense of independence; Adapting social connectedness in the pandemic: participants strived to compensate for previous social connectedness as the pandemic reduced support networks; Managing social connections within and through the intervention: although there were tensions, for example, between sharing of achievements feeling supportive and competitive, participants engaged with various lifestyle changes; social connections supported group attendance and implementation of lifestyle changes. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver by group video-call. We argue that dementia prevention is both an individual and societal concern. For more vulnerable populations, messages that lifestyle change can help memory should be communicated alongside supportive, relational approaches to enabling lifestyle changes.

Measuring the prevalence of sleep disturbances in people with dementia living in care homes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Sleep disturbances are a feature in people living with dementia, including getting up during the night, difficulty falling asleep, and excessive daytime sleepiness and may precipitate a person with dementia moving into residential care. There are varying estimates of the frequency of sleep disturbances, and it is unknown whether they are a problem for the individual. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence and associated factors of sleep disturbances in the care home population with dementia. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO (29/04/2019) for studies of the prevalence or associated factors of sleep disturbances in people with dementia living in care homes. We computed meta-analytical estimates of the prevalence of sleep disturbances and used meta-regression to investigate the effects of measurement methods, demographics, and study characteristics. RESULTS: We included 55 studies of 22,780 participants. The pooled prevalence on validated questionnaires of clinically significant sleep disturbances was 20% (95% confidence interval, CI 16% to 24%) and of any symptom of sleep disturbance was 38% (95% CI 33% to 44%). On actigraphy using a cutoff sleep efficiency of <85% prevalence was 70% (95% CI 55% to 85%). Staff distress, resident agitation, and prescription of psychotropic medications were associated with sleep disturbances. Studies with a higher percentage of males had a higher prevalence of sleep disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically significant sleep disturbances are less common than those measured on actigraphy and are associated with residents and staff distress and the increased prescription of psychotropics. Actigraphy appears to offer no benefit over proxy reports in this population.

Intensive support for adults with intellectual disability and behaviours that challenge: a survey of provision and service typologies in England.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 18% of adults with intellectual disabilities living in the community display behaviours that challenge. Intensive support teams (ISTs) have been recommended to provide high-quality responsive care aimed at avoiding unnecessary admissions and reducing lengthy in-patient stays. AIMS: To identify and describe the geographical distribution and characteristics of ISTs, and to develop a typology of IST service models in England. METHOD: We undertook a national cross-sectional survey of 73 ISTs. A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed based on six prespecified grouping factors (mode of referrals, size of case-load, use of outcome measures, staff composition, hours of operation and setting of service). A simplified form of thematic analysis was used to explore free-text responses. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified two models of IST provision: (a) independent and (b) enhanced provision based around a community intellectual disability service. ISTs aspire to adopt person-centred care, mostly use the framework of positive behaviour support for behaviour that challenges, and report concerns about organisational and wider context issues. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the delivery of intensive support to people with intellectual disability and behaviour that challenges. A two-cluster model of ISTs was found to have statistical validity and clinical utility. The clinical heterogeneity indicates that further evaluation of these service models is needed to establish their clinical and cost-effectiveness.

The social functioning in dementia scale (SF-DEM): Exploratory factor analysis and psychometric properties in mild, moderate, and severe dementia.

INTRODUCTION: The psychometric properties of the social functioning in dementia scale over different dementia severities are unknown. METHODS: We interviewed 299 family carers of people with mild, moderate, or severe dementia from two UK research sites; examined acceptability (completion rates); conducted exploratory factor analysis; and tested each factor's internal consistency and construct validity. RESULTS: Of 299, 285 (95.3%) carers completed questionnaires. Factor analysis indicated three distinct factors with acceptable internal consistency: spending time with other people, correlating with overall social function (r = 0.56, P < .001) and activities of daily living (r = -0.48, P < .001); communicating with other people correlating with activities of daily living (r = -0.66, P < .001); and sensitivity to other people correlating with quality of life (r = 0.35, P < .001) and inversely with neuropsychiatric symptoms (r = -0.45, P < .001). The three factors' correlations with other domains were similar across all dementia severities. DISCUSSION: The social functioning in dementia scale carer version measures three social functioning domains and has satisfactory psychometric properties in all severities of dementia.