AIM: This study aimed to examine the extent, range and variety of research in Europe describing healthcare interventions for older people with dementia (PwD) and family caregivers.METHODS: This was a scoping review and followed the PRISMA Scoping Review guideline. MEDLINE, CINAHL and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2020. Studies reporting healthcare interventions in Europe for PwD over 65 years and their family caregivers were included.RESULTS: Twenty-one studies from six European countries were included. The types of healthcare intervention identified were categorized as follows: (1) family unit intervention (interventions for both PwD and their family caregiver), (2) individual intervention (separate interventions for PwD or family caregivers) and (3) family caregiver only intervention (interventions for family caregivers only but with outcomes for both PwD and family caregivers).CONCLUSIONS: This review provides insight into healthcare interventions for older PwD and family caregivers in Europe. More studies are needed that focus on the family as a unit of care in dementia.
AIM: This study aimed to examine the extent, range and variety of research in Europe describing healthcare interventions for older people with dementia (PwD) and family caregivers.METHODS: This was a scoping review and followed the PRISMA Scoping Review guideline. MEDLINE, CINAHL and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2020. Studies reporting healthcare interventions in Europe for PwD over 65 years and their family caregivers were included.RESULTS: Twenty-one studies from six European countries were included. The types of healthcare intervention identified were categorized as follows: (1) family unit intervention (interventions for both PwD and their family caregiver), (2) individual intervention (separate interventions for PwD or family caregivers) and (3) family caregiver only intervention (interventions for family caregivers only but with outcomes for both PwD and family caregivers).CONCLUSIONS: This review provides insight into healthcare interventions for older PwD and family caregivers in Europe. More studies are needed that focus on the family as a unit of care in dementia.
Artikel van Judith Huis in het Veld, docent onderzoeker van de Hogeschool Inholland verschenen in Research in Gerontological Nursing ABSTRACT The current article discusses how and by whom family caregivers want to be supported in selfmanagement when managing changes in behavior and mood of relatives with dementia and whether family caregivers consider eHealth a useful tool for self-management support. Four asynchronous online focus groups were held with 32 family caregivers of individuals with dementia. Transcripts of the online focus groups were analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. Family caregivers need support from professionals or peers in the form of (a) information about dementia and its symptoms, (b) tips and advice on managing changes in behavior and mood, (c) opportunities to discuss experiences and feelings, and (d) appreciation and acknowledgement of caregiving. The opinions of family caregivers about self-management support through eHealth were also reported. Findings suggest a personal approach is essential to self-management support for family caregivers managing changes in behavior and mood of relatives with dementia. In addition, self-management support can be provided to some extent through eHealth, but this medium cannot replace personal contacts entirely.
Huntington’s disease (HD) and various spinocerebellar ataxias (SCA) are autosomal dominantly inherited neurodegenerative disorders caused by a CAG repeat expansion in the disease-related gene1. The impact of HD and SCA on families and individuals is enormous and far reaching, as patients typically display first symptoms during midlife. HD is characterized by unwanted choreatic movements, behavioral and psychiatric disturbances and dementia. SCAs are mainly characterized by ataxia but also other symptoms including cognitive deficits, similarly affecting quality of life and leading to disability. These problems worsen as the disease progresses and affected individuals are no longer able to work, drive, or care for themselves. It places an enormous burden on their family and caregivers, and patients will require intensive nursing home care when disease progresses, and lifespan is reduced. Although the clinical and pathological phenotypes are distinct for each CAG repeat expansion disorder, it is thought that similar molecular mechanisms underlie the effect of expanded CAG repeats in different genes. The predicted Age of Onset (AO) for both HD, SCA1 and SCA3 (and 5 other CAG-repeat diseases) is based on the polyQ expansion, but the CAG/polyQ determines the AO only for 50% (see figure below). A large variety on AO is observed, especially for the most common range between 40 and 50 repeats11,12. Large differences in onset, especially in the range 40-50 CAGs not only imply that current individual predictions for AO are imprecise (affecting important life decisions that patients need to make and also hampering assessment of potential onset-delaying intervention) but also do offer optimism that (patient-related) factors exist that can delay the onset of disease.To address both items, we need to generate a better model, based on patient-derived cells that generates parameters that not only mirror the CAG-repeat length dependency of these diseases, but that also better predicts inter-patient variations in disease susceptibility and effectiveness of interventions. Hereto, we will use a staggered project design as explained in 5.1, in which we first will determine which cellular and molecular determinants (referred to as landscapes) in isogenic iPSC models are associated with increased CAG repeat lengths using deep-learning algorithms (DLA) (WP1). Hereto, we will use a well characterized control cell line in which we modify the CAG repeat length in the endogenous ataxin-1, Ataxin-3 and Huntingtin gene from wildtype Q repeats to intermediate to adult onset and juvenile polyQ repeats. We will next expand the model with cells from the 3 (SCA1, SCA3, and HD) existing and new cohorts of early-onset, adult-onset and late-onset/intermediate repeat patients for which, besides accurate AO information, also clinical parameters (MRI scans, liquor markers etc) will be (made) available. This will be used for validation and to fine-tune the molecular landscapes (again using DLA) towards the best prediction of individual patient related clinical markers and AO (WP3). The same models and (most relevant) landscapes will also be used for evaluations of novel mutant protein lowering strategies as will emerge from WP4.This overall development process of landscape prediction is an iterative process that involves (a) data processing (WP5) (b) unsupervised data exploration and dimensionality reduction to find patterns in data and create “labels” for similarity and (c) development of data supervised Deep Learning (DL) models for landscape prediction based on the labels from previous step. Each iteration starts with data that is generated and deployed according to FAIR principles, and the developed deep learning system will be instrumental to connect these WPs. Insights in algorithm sensitivity from the predictive models will form the basis for discussion with field experts on the distinction and phenotypic consequences. While full development of accurate diagnostics might go beyond the timespan of the 5 year project, ideally our final landscapes can be used for new genetic counselling: when somebody is positive for the gene, can we use his/her cells, feed it into the generated cell-based model and better predict the AO and severity? While this will answer questions from clinicians and patient communities, it will also generate new ones, which is why we will study the ethical implications of such improved diagnostics in advance (WP6).
