The Right to Rehabilitation for People With Dementia: A Codesign Approach to Barriers and Solutions.

INTRODUCTION: People with dementia of all ages have a human right to equal access to quality health care. Despite evidence regarding its effectiveness, many people living with dementia are unable to access rehabilitation for promoting function and quality of life. Conducted in Australia, this study was designed to (1) explore barriers to access to dementia rehabilitation and (2) identify solutions that improve access to rehabilitation. METHODS: People living with dementia (n = 5) and care partners (n = 8) and health professionals (n = 13) were recruited nationally. Experience-based codesign across three virtual workshops was used to understand barriers and design solutions to improve access to rehabilitation treatments. Socio-ecological analyses, using the Levesque Access to Health care framework, were applied to findings regarding barriers and to aid selection of solutions. RESULTS: There was high attendance (92.3%) across the three workshops. Barriers were identified at a user level (including lack of knowledge, transport, cost and difficulty navigating the health, aged care and disability sectors) and health service level (including health professional low dementia knowledge and negative attitudes, inequitable funding models and non-existent or fragmented services). Solutions focused on widespread dementia education and training, including ensuring that people with dementia and their care partners know about rehabilitation therapies and that health professionals, aged care and disability co-ordinators know how to refer to and deliver rehabilitation interventions. Dementia care navigators, changes to Australia's public funding models and specific dementia rehabilitation programmes were also recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to accessing rehabilitation for people with dementia exist at multiple levels and will require a whole-community and systems approach to ensure change. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with living experience (preferred term by those involved) were involved at two levels within this research. A Chief Investigator living with dementia was involved in the design of the study and writing of the manuscript. People with living experience, care partners and service providers were participants in the codesign process to identify barriers and design potential solutions.

Navigating artificial intelligence in care homes: Competing stakeholder views of trust and logics of care.

The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on systemic issues plaguing care (nursing) homes, from staff shortages to substandard healthcare. Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, including robots and chatbots, have been proposed as solutions to such issues. Yet, socio-ethical concerns about the implications of AI for health and care practices have also been growing among researchers and practitioners. At a time of AI promise and concern, it is critical to understand how those who develop and implement these technologies perceive their use and impact in care homes. Combining a sociological approach to trust with Annemarie Mol's logic of care and Jeanette Pol's concept of fitting, we draw on 18 semi-structured interviews with care staff, advocates, and AI developers to explore notions of human-AI care. Our findings show positive perceptions and experiences of AI in care homes, but also ambivalence. While integrative care incorporating humans and technology was salient across interviewees, we also identified experiential, contextual, and knowledge divides between AI developers and care staff. For example, developers lacked experiential knowledge of care homes' daily functioning and constraints, influencing how they designed AI. Care staff demonstrated limited experiential knowledge of AI or more critical views about contexts of use, affecting their trust in these technologies. Different understandings of 'good care' were evident, too: 'warm' care was sometimes linked to human care and 'cold' care to technology. In conclusion, understandings and experiences of AI are marked by different logics of sociotechnical care and related levels of trust in these sensitive settings.

Competing realities, uncertain diagnoses of infectious disease: Mass self-testing for COVID-19 and liminal bio-citizenship.

Diagnoses of infectious diseases are being transformed as mass self-testing using rapid antigen tests (RATs) is increasingly integrated into public health. Widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic, RATs are claimed to have many advantages over 'gold-standard' polymerase chain reaction tests, especially their ease of use and production of quick results. Yet, while laboratory studies indicate the value of RATs in detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus antigen, uncertainty surrounds their deployment and ultimate effectiveness in stemming infections. This article applies the analytic lens of biological citizenship (or bio-citizenship) to explore Australia's experience of implementing a RAT-based mass self-testing strategy to manage COVID-19. Drawing on Annemarie Mol's (1999, The Sociological Review, 47(1), 74-89) concept of ontological politics and analysing government statements, scientific articles and news media reporting published during a critical juncture of the strategy's implementation, we explore the kind of bio-citizenship implied by this strategy. Our analysis suggests the emergence of what we call liminal bio-citizenship, whereby citizens are made responsible for self-managing infection risk without the diagnostic certitude this demands. We discuss how the different realities of mass self-testing interact to reinforce this liminal citizenship and consider the implications for the sociology of diagnosis.

The relatives of people with depression: A systematic review and methodological critique of qualitative studies.

Being a close relative of a person with depression can take a heavy toll on the former, but these relatives are increasingly made responsible for taking on extensive carer roles. Research on relatives of people with depression is currently dominated by a focus on "carer burden" and although such a focus can explain many relatives' experiences and daily lives, it provides very limited insight into the everyday life of a person living with someone with depression. Therefore, we scoped qualitative research on people who are relatives of people living with depression and identified knowledge gaps caused by explicit or implicit theoretical or methodological assumptions. We conducted an exhaustive literature search in CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Eric. In total, 34 publications were included, their quality evaluated and their findings mapped and summarized. We identified four interrelated and overlapping themes that dominated the findings of the publications: (a) recognition of "depression", (b) emotional responses, (c) interruptions of relationships, and (d) a staged psychosocial process. The vast majority of studies presented de-contextualized and underinterpreted analyses assuming a homogeneity of (illness) experiences and disregarded the important influence of social contributors to social relationships, connectedness, and mental health problems.

Artificial Intelligence in Long-Term Care: Technological Promise, Aging Anxieties, and Sociotechnical Ageism.

This article explores views about older people and aging underpinning practices and perceptions of development and implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in long-term care homes (LTC). Drawing on semi-structured interviews with seven AI developers, seven LTC staff, and four LTC advocates, we analyzed how AI technologies for later life are imagined, designed, deployed, and resisted. Using the concepts of "promissory discourse" and "aging anxieties", we investigated manifestations of ageism in accounts of AI applications in LTC. Despite positive intentions, both AI developers and LTC staff/advocates engaged in simplistic scripts about aging, care, and the technological capacity of older people. We further uncovered what we termed sociotechnical ageism-a form that is not merely digital but rests on interacting pre-conceptions about the inability or lack of interest of older people to use emerging technologies coupled with social assumptions about aging, LTC, and technological innovation.

'A platform for goodness, not for badness': The heuristics of hope in patients' evaluations of online health information.

Patient advocates and activists are increasingly relying on online health information that can assist them to manage their health condition. Yet once online, they will confront diverse information whose veracity and utility are difficult to determine. This article offers a sociological analysis of the practical methods, or heuristics, that patient advocates and activists use when making judgements about the credibility and utility of online information. Drawing on the findings from interviews with fifty Australian patient advocates and activists, it is argued that these individuals' use of these heuristics reflects their hopes that information can help them manage their condition which may, in some cases, override fears and uncertainties that arise during searches. The article identifies the common 'rules-of-thumb'-or what we call the 'heuristics of hope'-that patient advocates/activists may use to make judgements and highlights the dangers of over-reliance on them, especially regarding clinically unproven, potentially unsafe treatments. Analyses of the heuristics of hope, we conclude, can assist in understanding the dynamics of decision-making and the role that affect plays in online patient communities which is crucial in an age characterised by the rapid circulation of emotionally charged messages, often based on hope.

Searching for diagnostic certainty, governing risk: Patients' ambivalent experiences of medical testing.

Diagnosis is pivotal to medicine's epistemic system: it serves to explain individual symptoms, classify them into recognizable conditions and determine their prognosis and treatment. Medical tests, or investigative procedures for detecting and monitoring disease, play a central role in diagnosis. While testing promises diagnostic certainty or a definitive risk assessment, it often produces uncertainties and new questions which call for yet further tests. In short, testing, regardless of its specific application, is imbued with meaning and emotionally fraught. In this article, we explore individuals' ambivalent experiences of testing as they search for diagnostic certainty, and the anxieties and frustrations of those for whom it remains elusive. Combining insights from sociological work on ambivalence and the biopolitics of health, and drawing on qualitative interviews with Australian healthcare recipients who have undergone testing in the context of clinical practice, we argue that these experiences are explicable in light of the contradictory impulses and tensions associated with what we term 'bio-subjectification'. We consider the implications of our analysis in light of the development of new tests that produce ever finer delineations between healthy and diseased populations, concluding that their use will likely multiply uncertainties and heighten rather than lessen anxieties.

Focus issue introduction: Advanced Solid-State Lasers 2020.

This Joint Issue of Optics Express and Optical Materials Express features 15 articles written by authors who participated in the international online conference Advanced Solid State Lasers held 13-16 October, 2020. This review provides a summary of the conference and these articles from the conference which sample the spectrum of solid state laser theory and experiment, from materials research to sources and from design innovation to applications.

Managing risks or generating uncertainties? Ambiguous ontologies of testing in Australian healthcare.

Medical testing promises to establish certainty by providing a definitive assessment of risk or diagnosis. But can those who rely on tests to offer advice or make clinical decisions be assured of this certainty? This article examines how Australian health professionals, namely clinicians, microbiologists, specialist physicians and health policymakers, delineate the boundary between certainty and uncertainty in their accounts of medical testing. Applying concepts from science and technology studies, and drawing on qualitative data from a sociological study of testing in Australian healthcare, we consider how professionals ascribe meaning to testing and test results. As we argue, for these health professionals, the 'evidence' that testing generates has ambiguous ontological significance: while it promises to provide diagnostic certainty and clear direction for advice or treatment, it also generates uncertainties that may lead to yet further tests. Our analysis leads us to question a key premise of testing, namely that it is possible to establish certainty in medical practice via the measurement of individual health risks and disease markers. Against this dominant view, the responses of the health professionals in our study suggest that uncertainty is intrinsic to testing due to the constantly changing, unstable character of 'evidence'. We conclude by considering the implications of our analysis in light of healthcare's increasing reliance on sophisticated technologies of 'personalised' testing using genetic information and data analytics.

From the margins to mainstream: How providers of autologous 'stem cell treatments' legitimise their practice in Australia.

This article examines how Australian providers of unproven autologous 'stem cell treatments' legitimise these products and their practices. We focus on the strategies employed by providers in their efforts to create and sustain a market for procedures that have yet to be proven safe and clinically efficacious. Drawing on the work of Thomas Gieryn and Pierre Bourdieu and the findings of research involving an analysis of direct-to-consumer online advertising of clinics that sell purported 'stem cell treatments' and interviews with clinicians who provide them, we examine the mechanisms by which medical legitimacy for these products is established and defended. We argue that Australian providers employ a number of strategies in order to create medical legitimacy for the use and sale of scientifically unproven therapies. A key strategy employed by providers of stem cell treatments is to use markers of social distinction, drawing strongly on the symbols of science, to confirm their legitimacy and differentiate their own practices from those of other providers, who are posited as operating outside the boundary of accepted practice and hence illegitimate. We argue there is a paradox at the heart of the autologous stem cell treatment market. Providers aim to create legitimacy for their work by emphasising the potential benefits of their 'treatments', their expertise and the professionalisation of their practices in an environment where regulators are yet to take a firm stance; they are also required to undertake the challenging task of managing patients' hopes and expectations that both enable and potentially jeopardise their operations and revenue. We conclude by suggesting that providers' creation of symbolic capital to establish medical legitimacy is a crucial means by which they seek to bring unproven 'stem cell treatments' from the margins of medicine into the mainstream and to portray themselves as medical pioneers rather than medical cowboys who exploit vulnerable patients.