Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Qual Life Res ; 31(11): 3177-3187, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36057938

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We investigated how quality of life (QoL) changed between 2018 and 2020, and how its related factors, i.e., communication with friends and family, loneliness, and sleeping difficulties changed amid the early-phase COVID-19 pandemic among Finnish older people. METHODS: This study utilizes data from a repeated cross-sectional, population-based FinSote survey in 2018 and 2020. Participants were community-dwelling people aged 75 years or older (N = 9781 in 2018 and N = 9919 in 2020). QoL was assessed with the EUROHIS-QoL-8 scale. Changes in QoL-related factors were self-evaluated in 2020. Statistical methods included t test, Cohen's D, and chi-square test. To identify potential risk groups, all analyses were stratified by socio-demographic features including sex, age, economic deprivation, living alone, and difficulties in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL). RESULTS: QoL improved slightly from 2018 to 2020 (means 3.68 and 3.81, respectively). Only those reporting economic deprivation demonstrated a slight decrease in QoL (3.24 vs. 3.14). Of respondents, 63% reported having less communication with friends and family, 42% having felt lonelier, and 20% having more sleeping difficulties amid the pandemic. Negative changes were more often reported by women, the oldest old, those living alone, reporting economic deprivation, or manifesting IADL difficulties. CONCLUSION: Finnish older people's QoL was not affected as much as expected amid the pandemic, although some population groups were, however, more susceptible to the negative effects of the pandemic on QoL-related factors. Results imply that various socio-demographic features may shape the effects of a global pandemic and its control measures on wellbeing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quality of Life , Activities of Daily Living , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Finland/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Quality of Life/psychology
2.
Implement Sci ; 14(1): 107, 2019 12 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31856882

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The PACE 'Steps to Success' programme is a complex educational and development intervention for staff to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this programme has been implemented in 37 LTCFs in 7 European countries. Alongside an effectiveness study, a process evaluation study was conducted. This paper reports on the results of this process evaluation, of which the aim was to provide a more detailed understanding of the implementation of the PACE Programme across and within countries. METHODS: The process evaluation followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and involved various measures and tools, including diaries for country trainers, evaluation questionnaires for care staff, attendance lists and interviews (online and face-to-face, individual and in groups) with country trainers, managers, PACE coordinators and other staff members. Based on key elements of the PACE Programme, a priori criteria for a high, medium and low level of the RE-AIM components Reach, Adoption, Implementation and intention to Maintenance were defined. Qualitative data on factors affecting each RE-AIM component gathered in the online discussion groups and interviews were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: The performance of the PACE Programme on the RE-AIM components was highly variable within and across countries, with a high or medium score for in total 28 (out of 37) LTCFs on Reach, for 26 LTCFs on Adoption, for 35 LTCFs on Implementation and for 34 LTCFs on intention to Maintenance. The factors affecting performance on the different RE-AIM components could be classified into three major categories: (1) the PACE Programme itself and its way of delivery, (2) people working with the PACE Programme and (3) contextual factors. Several country-specific challenges in implementing the PACE Programme were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the PACE Programme was feasible but leaves room for improvement. Our analysis helps to better understand the optimal levels of training and facilitation and provides recommendations to improve implementation in the LTC setting. The results of the process evaluation will be used to further adapt and improve the PACE Programme prior to its further dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PACE study was registered at www.isrctn.com-ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) July 30, 2015.


Subject(s)
Health Plan Implementation/methods , Nursing Homes/standards , Palliative Care/methods , Process Assessment, Health Care/methods , Program Evaluation/methods , Quality Improvement , Cluster Analysis , Europe , Humans , Long-Term Care
3.
BMC Palliat Care ; 17(1): 47, 2018 Mar 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29530091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several studies have highlighted the need for improvement in palliative care delivered to older people long-term care facilities. However, the available evidence on how to improve palliative care in these settings is weak, especially in Europe. We describe the protocol of the PACE trial aimed to 1) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the 'PACE Steps to Success' palliative care intervention for older people in long-term care facilities, and 2) assess the implementation process and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation in different countries. METHODS: We will conduct a multi-facility cluster randomised controlled trial in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and England. In total, 72 facilities will be randomized to receive the 'Pace Steps to Success intervention' or to 'care as usual'. Primary outcome at resident level: quality of dying (CAD-EOLD); and at staff level: staff knowledge of palliative care (Palliative Care Survey). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: resident's quality of end-of-life care, staff self-efficacy, self-perceived educational needs, and opinions on palliative care. Economic outcomes: direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Measurements are performed at baseline and after the intervention. For the resident-level outcomes, facilities report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over a previous four-month period and structured questionnaires are sent to (1) the administrator, (2) staff member most involved in care (3) treating general practitioner, and (4) a relative. For the staff-level outcomes, all staff who are working in the facilities are asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A process evaluation will run alongside the effectiveness evaluation in the intervention group using the RE-AIM framework. DISCUSSION: The lack of high quality trials in palliative care has been recognized throughout the field of palliative care research. This cross-national cluster RCT designed to evaluate the impact of the palliative care intervention for long-term care facilities 'PACE Steps to Success' in seven countries, will provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness as well as the preconditions for optimal implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, and this within different health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at www.isrctn.com - ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) Registration date: July 30, 2015.


Subject(s)
Palliative Care/methods , Skilled Nursing Facilities/standards , Skilled Nursing Facilities/trends , Belgium , Delivery of Health Care/standards , England , Finland , Humans , Italy , Netherlands , Poland , Quality Improvement/standards , Surveys and Questionnaires , Switzerland
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...