Caregiving: a risk factor of poor health and depression among informal caregivers in India- A comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

In an ageing society, the provision of long-term care is the prime need. In Indian cultural setting, family members are the informal, albeit primary caregivers to the elderly. Caregiving demands intense emotional and financial involvement. While taking care of elderly persons' health and wellbeing, these family members, acting as informal caregivers, may themselves become vulnerable to poor health due to additional stress and burden. Using a nationally representative survey, the study tried to identify how health condition varies within caregivers and a comparative analysis of how in similar socio-economic background health condition varies between caregivers and non-caregivers.

METHOD

The data, used for the analysis, is taken from Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI), Wave I. Both descriptive and multivariable regression analysis are done in different models along with interaction effect of caregiving to understand the difference in health status between caregiver and non-caregivers.

RESULTS

Nearly 29% and 11% of the informal caregivers, reported to have depressive symptoms and poor self-rated health (SRH), respectively. Almost half of the caregivers, who provide care for more than 40 h a week, are diagnosed to have depressive symptoms. They are also at higher risk of having depressive symptoms (AOR 1.59 CI 1.16-2.18) and poor SRH (AOR 1.73 CI 1.11-2.69) than those who invest less than 40 h in a week. In almost every socio-economic condition, caregivers are at a higher risk of having depression and poor health than non-caregivers. Caregivers, who are widowed, live in rural areas or are not satisfied with current living arrangement are more vulnerable to have depressive symptoms. On the other hand, caregivers of age 45-59 years, widowed, male and who live only with their children with spouse absent, have almost 2 times higher odds of poor SRH than non-caregivers.

CONCLUSION

Caregivers are more susceptible to depression and poor self-rated health compared to non-caregivers irrespective of their socio-economic characteristics, only the magnitude of vulnerability varies.

PROTOCOL: Home-based care for people with dementia: A systematic review

The abstract section should read: This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: (1) Which formal HBC services for people with dementia have been tested in an RCT? (2) How effective are the different formal HBC services in improving the physical and mental health outcomes of people with dementia? (3) What is the cost and patient's health service usage of different formal HBC services?

Resource allocation in dementia care: comparing the views of people with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals under constrained and unconstrained budget scenarios

BACKGROUND

People with dementia and their carers have a wide range of health and social care needs. People with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals (HSCPs) all have different perspectives on dementia care. Differences among these groups are important for commissioners of services and for front-line HSCPs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the service recommendations of people with dementia and carers with those of HSCPs, under different budgetary conditions.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach, which builds on the Balance of Care method, was used. Nine workshops were held with 41 participants from three groups: people with dementia, carers and HSCPs. Participants were asked to make decisions on a set of services for case types of dementia under two scenarios: a no budget constraint (NBC) scenario and a budget constraint (BC) scenario.

RESULTS

While each group allocated resources in broadly similar overall proportions, important differences in emphasis emerged: (i) people with dementia and carers placed more emphasis on psychosocial supports than HSCPs; (ii) carers put more emphasis on respite opportunities for carers; and (iii) carers identified residential care as the most suitable setting for the person with dementia more frequently than health care professionals.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the importance of psychosocial interventions, including counselling and peer support programmes, are currently underestimated by HSCPs. The provision of in-home respite is highly valued by carers. Even with unconstrained resources, some carers do not judge home care to be a viable option for dementia case types with high-level care needs.

"Nobody Seems to Know Where to Even Turn To": Barriers in Accessing and Utilising Dementia Care Services in England and The Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Accessing post-diagnostic care can be difficult for people with dementia and their informal carers. Little is known, however, about the determinants of barriers to access, and how these might vary between countries. The aim of this study was to explore potential inequalities in access to formal dementia care services between England and the Netherlands, specifically from more disadvantaged areas.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study, involving semi-structured qualitative interviews and a carer questionnaire. People with dementia and informal carers were recruited by clinicians. The postal survey was co-produced with people with dementia, informal carers, and health care professionals. The survey asked carers about their own and their relatives with dementia's, social support service usage and financing; as well as how they were made aware of services and whether they required more support. Qualitative transcripts were analysed by two researchers in each country using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 103 carer questionnaires were received by post and 13 interviews were conducted with people with dementia and family carers between January 2020 and April 2020. Many services were accessed via self-funding. Thematic analysis generated five core themes: Health literacy; Having faith and lack of faith; Service suitability; Structural issues surrounding service provision; and Financing care. One major difference between both country's systems of care were the case manager and network support which people with dementia and carers benefitted from in the Netherlands, which was rarely the case in the UK.

CONCLUSIONS

People with dementia and informal carers need to be supported better in accessing formal dementia care services in both the UK and the Netherlands, whilst some learning can be taken to improve access.

Components, impacts and costs of dementia home support: a research programme including the DESCANT RCT

Background

Over half of people with dementia live at home. We know little about what home support could be clinically effective or cost-effective in enabling them to live well.

Objectives

We aimed to (1) review evidence for components of home support, identify their presence in the literature and in services in England, and develop an appropriate economic model; (2) develop and test a practical memory support package in early-stage dementia, test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine home support in later-stage dementia and design a toolkit based on this evidence; and (3) elicit the preferences of staff, carers and people with dementia for home support inputs and packages, and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches in early- and later-stage dementia.

Design

We undertook (1) an evidence synthesis, national surveys on the NHS and social care and an economic review; (2) a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial [Dementia Early Stage Cognitive Aids New Trial (DESCANT)] to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing memory aids and guidance to people with early-stage dementia (the DESCANT intervention), alongside process evaluation and qualitative analysis, an observational study of existing care packages in later-stage dementia along with qualitative analysis, and toolkit development to summarise this evidence; and (3) consultation with experts, staff and carers to explore the balance between informal and paid home support using case vignettes, discrete choice experiments to explore the preferences of people with dementia and carers between home support packages in early- and later-stage dementia, and cost–utility analysis building on trial and observational study.

Setting

The national surveys described Community Mental Health Teams, memory clinics and social care services across England. Recruitment to the trial was through memory services in nine NHS trusts in England and one health board in Wales. Recruitment to the observational study was through social services in 17 local authorities in England. Recruitment for the vignette and preference studies was through memory services, community centres and carers’ organisations.

Participants

People aged > 50 years with dementia within 1 year of first attendance at a memory clinic were eligible for the trial. People aged > 60 years with later-stage dementia within 3 months of a review of care needs were eligible for the observational study. We recruited staff, carers and people with dementia for the vignette and preference studies. All participants had to give written informed consent.

Main outcome measures

The trial and observational study used the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale as the primary outcome and also measured quality of life, capability, cognition, general psychological health and carers’ sense of competence.

Methods

Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions, methods and outcome measures, our evidence and economic reviews both used narrative synthesis. The main source of economic studies was the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. We analysed the trial and observational study by linear mixed models. We analysed the trial by ‘treatment allocated’ and used propensity scores to minimise confounding in the observational study.

Results

Our reviews and surveys identified several home support approaches of potential benefit. In early-stage dementia, the DESCANT trial had 468 randomised participants (234 intervention participants and 234 control participants), with 347 participants analysed. We found no significant effect at the primary end point of 6 months of the DESCANT intervention on any of several participant outcome measures. The primary outcome was the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale, for which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores showing greater dependence. After adjustment for differences at baseline, the mean difference was 0.38, slightly but not significantly favouring the comparator group receiving treatment as usual. The 95% confidence interval ran from –0.89 to 1.65 (p = 0.56). There was no evidence that more intensive care packages in later-stage dementia were more effective than basic care. However, formal home care appeared to help keep people at home. Staff recommended informal care that cost 88% of formal care, but for informal carers this ratio was only 62%. People with dementia preferred social and recreational activities, and carers preferred respite care and regular home care. The DESCANT intervention is probably not cost-effective in early-stage dementia, and intensive care packages are probably not cost-effective in later-stage dementia. From the perspective of the third sector, intermediate intensity packages were cheaper but less effective. Certain elements may be driving these results, notably reduced use of carers’ groups.

Limitations

Our chosen outcome measures may not reflect subtle outcomes valued by people with dementia.

Conclusions

Several approaches preferred by people with dementia and their carers have potential. However, memory aids aiming to affect daily living activities in early-stage dementia or intensive packages compared with basic care in later-stage dementia were not clinically effective or cost-effective.

Future work

Further work needs to identify what people with dementia and their carers prefer and develop more sensitive outcome measures.

Study registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12591717. The evidence synthesis is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014008890.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Development and field-testing of the Dementia Carer Assessment of Support Needs Tool (DeCANT)

OBJECTIVES

Caring for a person with dementia is associated with poor mental, physical, and social health, which makes it important to consider how carers are best supported in their caring role to preserve both their and the person with dementia's well-being. At present, a robust instrument to assess carers' support needs does not exist. This study aimed to develop a self-reported questionnaire to assess the support needs of carers of people with dementia. The objectives were to: (1) generate items, (2) pilot test, and (3) field-test the questionnaire.

DESIGN

Development and field-testing of a new questionnaire.

SETTINGS

Primary and secondary health and social care of informal carers and people with dementia in nine municipalities and one dementia clinic in a hospital in Denmark.

PARTICIPANTS

Eight experts, 12 carers, and 7 digital users participated in pilot testing. 301 carers participated in field-testing.

MEASUREMENTS

Items for inclusion were generated based on interviews and literature review. An iterative process of data collection was applied to establish face and content validity of the Dementia Carer Assessment of Support Needs Tool (DeCANT) using Content Validity Index among experts and cognitive interviews with carers. Field-testing of DeCANT among carers included using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey, the Barthel-20 Index, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory.

RESULTS

Initially, an item pool of 63 items was generated, and pilot testing reduced this to 42 items. Subsequent field-testing resulted in a 25-item version of DeCANT, and confirmatory factor analysis of three hypothesized models demonstrated a marginally better fit to a four-factor model with fit indices of: χ2 = 775.170 (p < 0.001), root mean square error of approximation = 0.073, Comparative Fit Index = 0.946, the Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.938, and weighted root mean residual (WRMR) = 1.265.

CONCLUSIONS

DeCANT is a 25-item carer-reported questionnaire that can be used to help identify their support needs when caring for a person with dementia to enable supportive interventions and improve carers' health and well-being.

Resource allocation across the dementia continuum: a mixed methods study examining decision making on optimal dementia care among health and social care professionals

Background

The understanding of appropriate or optimal care is particularly important for dementia, characterised by multiple, long-term, changing needs and the increasing expectations of people using services. However, the response of health and social care services is limited by resource constraints in most countries. This study sought to determine the optimal level, mix and cost of services for different dementia case types across the dementia continuum, and to better understand the resource allocation decision making process among health and social care professionals (HSCPs).

Methods

A balance of care framework was applied to the study questions and developed in three ways; firstly by considering optimality across the course of dementia and not just at the margin with residential care; secondly, through the introduction of a fixed budget to reveal constrained optimisation strategies; and thirdly through the use of a mixed methods design whereby qualitative data was collected at workshops using nominal group technique and analysed to obtain a more detailed understanding of the decision-making process. Twenty four HSCPs from a variety of disciplines participated in the resource allocation decision-making exercise.

Results

HSCPs differentiated between case type severity; providing 2.6 times more resources to case types with higher level needs than those with lower level needs. When a resource constraint was introduced there was no evidence of any disproportionate rationing of services on the basis of need, i.e. more severe case types were not favoured over less severe case types. However, the fiscal constraint led to a much greater focus on meeting physical and clinical dependency needs through conventional social care provision. There was less emphasis on day care and psychosocial provision when resources were scarcer following the introduction of a fixed budget constraint.

Conclusions

HSCPs completed complex resource allocation exercises for people with dementia, including expected differentiation across case type severity. When rationing was introduced, HSCPs did not discriminate in favour of case types with high levels of need. They did, however, support conventional home care provision over psychosocial care, although participants were still keen to provide some residual cover for the latter, especially for case types that might benefit.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06230-9.

Resource allocation decision-making in dementia care with and without budget constraints: a qualitative analysis

Introduction: Health systems in many different countries have increasingly been reorienting the delivery of dementia care to home and community care settings. This paper provides information on how health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in Ireland make decisions on resource allocation for people with dementia living at home and how resource constraints affect their decisions and choices. Methods: A balance of care approach was used to assess resource allocation across six dementia case types, from low to high needs. Workshops were held with 24 HSCPs from multiple disciplines. Participants allocated services in two scenarios: allocation with and without a budget constraint. Nominal group technique was used to structure discussions around resource allocation in both scenarios. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the qualitative data using a general inductive approach. Results: The following themes influenced allocative deliberations: whose needs are being met; what needs are identified; decision making context; decision making process; and allocation outcomes. Participants were proficient in making decisions, using 'decision rules' or heuristics to help them make decisions under fixed budget rules and sticking to conventional provision when constraints were in place. Conclusions: Freedom from a budget constraint allowed HSCPs to consider a broader range of services and to take a more expansive view on what needs should be considered, with a particular emphasis on adopting a proactive, preventative approach to the allocation of resources. The effect of the budget constraint overall was to narrow all considerations, using heuristics to limit the type of needs addressed and the range of services and supports provided. The consequences were a largely reactive, less personalised system of care. The findings emphasise the need for an integrated and comprehensive assessment process that is more concerned with individualised responses rather than relying on existing models of care alone.

Resource allocation decision-making in dementia care with and without budget constraints: a qualitative analysis

Introduction: Health systems in many different countries have increasingly been reorienting the delivery of dementia care to home and community care settings. This paper provides information on how health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in Ireland make decisions on resource allocation for people with dementia living at home and how resource constraints affect their decisions and choices. Methods: The study employed a balance of care approach to assess resource allocation across six dementia case types, ranging from low to high needs. Decision-making workshops were held with 24 HSCPs from a range of backgrounds. Participants were asked to allocate services and supports across dementia case types in two scenarios: allocation with and without a budget constraint. Nominal group technique was used to structure discussions around resource allocation in both scenarios. Thematic analysis was applied to analyse the qualitative data using a general inductive approach. Results: The following themes influenced allocative deliberations: whose needs are being met; what needs are identified; decision making context; decision making process; and allocation outcomes. Participants used 'decision rules' or heuristics to help them make decisions under fixed budget rules. Conclusions: Freedom from a budget constraint allowed HSCPs to consider a broader range of services and to take a more expansive view on what needs should be considered, with a particular emphasis on adopting a proactive, preventative approach to the allocation of resources. The effect of the budget constraint overall was to narrow all considerations, using heuristics to limit the type of needs addressed and the range of services and supports provided. The consequences were a largely reactive, less personalised system of care. The findings emphasise the need for an integrated and comprehensive assessment process that is more concerned with individualised responses rather than relying on existing models of care alone.