Taking a hike: Exploring leisure walkers embodied experiences

This paper uses walk along interviewing to investigate embodied experiences of walking on the South Downs Way, a long distance trail in southern England. Using a qualitative methodology - encompassing 93 walk-along interviews and auto-ethnographic reflections of two walker/researchers - it explores how walkers conceptualise their own walking experiences and captures this information while they are walking. It contributes to and extends the emerging body of literature which explores people’s experience, specifically aiming to develop a deeper understanding of leisure walking experiences in the dynamic space of the walk. It examines a range of bodily sensations and emotional states associated with the leisure walking experience in the context of temporal and environmental aspects, identifying those feelings that are innate and those which are mediated by external conditions. Current experiences intertwine with memories of other places and times in a process where connections are made between mind, body, the immediate physical environment, self and others, and disconnections from everyday life and the wider environment. These connections and disconnections create a sense of perspective, achievement and well-being

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

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

Gaps in understanding the experiences of homecare workers providing care for people with dementia up to the end of life: A systematic review

This systematic review of the literature explores the perspectives and experiences of homecare workers providing care for people with dementia living at home up to the end of life. A search of major English language databases in 2016 identified 378 studies on the topic, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria. No empirical research was identified that specifically addressed the research question. However, synthesis of the findings from the broader literature revealed three overarching themes: value of job role, emotional labour and poor information and communication. The role of homecare workers supporting a person with dementia up to the end of life remains under-researched, with unmet needs for informational, technical and emotional support reported. The effective components of training and support are yet to be identified

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

The potential of case management for people with dementia: a commentary

Background A recent review of studies of case management in dementia argues that lack of evidence of cost-effectiveness should discourage the use of this approach to care. We argue that that this is too conservative a stance, given the urgent need throughout the world to improve the quality of care for people with dementia and their caregivers. We propose a research agenda on case management for people with dementia. Method A critical comparison was made of the studies identified in two systematic reviews of trials of case management for dementia, with selective inclusion of non-trial studies and economic evaluations. Results Our interpretation of the literature leads us to four provisional conclusions. First, studies with long follow-up periods tend to show delayed relocation of people with dementia to care homes. Second, the quality of life of people with dementia and their caregivers may also influence the likelihood of relocation. Third, different understandings of what constitutes case management make interpretation of studies difficult. Fourth, we agree that the population most likely to benefit from case management needs to be characterised. Earlier intervention may be more beneficial than intervening when the condition has progressed and the individual's situation is highly complex. However, this runs counter to some definitions of case management as an administrative, professional, and systemic focus on people with high needs and where expensive support is accessed or in prospect. Conclusions More work needs to be carried out in a more focused way in order to establish the value of case management for people with dementia. Since care home residence is such a sizeable contributor to the costs of dementia care, studies need to be long enough to capture possible postponed relocation. However, case management studies with shorter follow-up periods can still contribute to our understanding, since they can demonstrate improved quality of life. Future research should be built around a common, agreed definition of types of case management

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

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

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