The symbiotic experiences of residents with and without dementia co-living in Taiwan's long-term care facilities: a phenomenological study.

BACKGROUND: In Taiwan, residents with and without dementia mostly co-live in long-term care facilities. The behavioral and psychiatric symptoms of dementia residents often pose challenges for others living together. This study explored the symbiotic experiences of residents without dementia co-living with those with dementia in long-term care facilities in Taiwan to present their experiences of living together. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study with a phenomenological design. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 30 residents without dementia from three long-term care institutions in Taiwan. Colaizzi's data processing steps were used for analysis. RESULTS: The analysis of interview transcripts revealed that the experiences of residents who lived with those with dementia were that of a "symbiosis." Three core themes were found: "the impact of co-living," "facing difficulties and coping," and "companionship and reciprocity." This study showed that residents without dementia may be affected by the behavioral and psychiatric symptoms of residents with dementia when co-living in long-term care facilities. However, there are also positive and mutually beneficial interactions between them. By helping people with dementia in their daily lives, residents without dementia feel happy and accomplished and their self-worth is enhanced. Furthermore, residents with dementia have more opportunities for social engagement and co-living interactions. CONCLUSION: These results can guide long-term care facilities without special care dementia units to support residents without dementia, reduce the interference of the behavioral and psychiatric symptoms of residents with dementia, and promote mutual benefits. However, these findings warrant further investigation.

Reliability and validity of childhood asthma control test in a population of Chinese asthmatic children.

BACKGROUND: No quick and easy assessment tool is presently available to measure asthma control and outcome in Chinese children. METHODS: We translated an established seven-item questionnaire into the Chinese Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-CACT) to measure asthma symptoms and their effect on daily function in 247 children aged 4-11 years enrolled from specialty clinics around Tainan. Subjects were classed as having either intermittent or persistent asthma and were evaluated at two outpatient visits 4-8 weeks apart (baseline and follow-up). RESULTS: C-CACT at baseline correlated significantly with physician evaluation scores (PES) except in predicted peak expiratory flow rate. There were significant differences for mean C-CACT score and mean PES between the intermittent group and persistent group. Internal consistency reliability of the survey was 0.741 at baseline and 0.759 at the follow-up visit. Test-retest reliability among 209 patients with the same specialist rating of asthma control at baseline and follow-up was r = 0.546 (P < 0.001). C-CACT scores of patients whose therapy needed to be stepped up was significantly lower than in those with unchanged or stepped-down therapy (F = 39.61, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C-CACT provides a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of asthma control in Chinese children.

Comparison of two specific allergen screening tests in different patient groups.

UniCAP and multiple-antigen simultaneous test (MAST) are among the widely used specific allergen tests. The Phadiatop and Fx5 are the multi-allergen UniCAP screening tests for inhalant allergens and common food allergens, respectively. We compared the differences between Phadiatop-Fx5 and MAST as screening allergen tests to clarify the optimal tests for different groups of allergic patients. Serum samples of 224 consecutive allergic patients were tested with Phadiatop, Fx5 and MAST. Results of these allergen tests were compared and analyzed in subgroups categorized by age, serum IgE levels and the clinical departments where the patients were treated. We found that among the 224 patients, 155 patients (69.2%) tested positive with Phadiatop while 137 (61.1%) tested positive with MAST for inhalant allergens. Twenty patients were Phadiatop(+)/MAST(-), while only 2 were Phadiatop(-)/MAST(+). There were 57 patients (25.4%) who tested positive with Fx5, while 32 (14.3%) tested positive with MAST for food allergens. Thirty-eight patients were Fx5(+)/MAST(-), while 13 were Fx5(-)/MAST(+). The disagreement between these two tests was more apparent in food allergen tests than in inhalant allergen tests. Most cases of disagreement occurred in younger age groups and in the patient group with IgE > 500 IU/ml. These results suggested that UniCAP allergen screening tests might be more effective in certain patient groups as screening tests.