A multicomponent psychosocial intervention among people with early-stage dementia involving physical exercise, cognitive stimulation therapy, psychoeducation and counselling: Results from a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing awareness of the benefits of both physical and psychosocial interventions to empower and benefit people with dementia and their caregivers. However, the potential additional benefits of combining physical and psychosocial interventions have only been sparsely explored. The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the acceptability and potential impact of a multicomponent intervention comprising physical exercise, cognitive stimulation therapy (CST), psychoeducation and counselling for people with early-stage dementia. DESIGN: A 15-week multicomponent group-based intervention was offered to people with early-stage dementia in Denmark (N = 44). A mixed-methods design combining interviews, observations, tests of cognitive and physical functioning and an interviewer-assisted questionnaire on quality of life was applied to (1) investigate acceptability of the intervention, including whether people with dementia and their caregivers found the intervention meaningful and (2) to explore and assess changes in participants' physical and cognitive functioning and quality of life. The study was conducted between June 2018 and August 2019. RESULTS: The pilot study demonstrated that the multicomponent intervention was acceptable for people with early-stage dementia and their caregivers. Test results did not show significant changes in measures of participants' physical and cognitive functioning or quality of life. However, qualitative data revealed that participants perceived the intervention as meaningful and found that it had a positive influence on their physical and social well-being. In addition, interaction and support from peers and staff members was considered important and rewarding. CONCLUSION: This multicomponent intervention constitutes a meaningful and beneficial activity for people with early-stage dementia and their caregivers. It provides an opportunity to engage in social interactions with peers and experience professional support. The study also underlines the importance of providing prolonged and sustainable interventions for people with dementia to maintain personal and social benefits.

Exploring Perceptions of Continuity of Care Among People With Long-Term Mental Disorders in Denmark.

Continuity of mental health care is central to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of people with mental disorders. While most studies on continuity of care fail to take the perspectives of service users into account, the aim of this study was to explore the perceived meanings of continuity of care among people with long-term mental disorders. Fifteen service users participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews. We used template analysis to guide the analysis. The main transversal themes of continuity were "Navigating the system" and "Connecting to people and everyday life." While the first theme related to the participants' experiences of their interaction with the mental health care system, the latter related to their hopes and perceived opportunities for a good life as desired outcomes of mental health care. We conclude that efforts to improve continuity of mental health care should be tailored to the priorities of service users.

Bedside rationing by general practitioners: a postal survey in the Danish public healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: It is ethically controversial whether medical doctors are morally permitted to ration the care of their patients at the bedside. To explore whether general practitioners in fact do ration in this manner we conducted a study within primary care in the Danish public healthcare system. The purpose of the study was to measure the extent to which general practitioners (GPs) would be willing to factor in cost-quality trade-offs when prescribing medicine, and to discover whether, and if so to what extent, they believe that patients should be informed about this. METHODS: Postal survey of 600 randomly selected Danish GPs, of which 330 responded to the questionnaire. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 14.0) was used to produce general descriptive statistics. Significance was calculated with the McNemar and the chi-square test. The main outcome measures of the study were twofold: an assessment of the proportion of GPs who, in a mainly hypothetical setting, would consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given their economic impact on the healthcare system; and a measure of the extent to which they would disclose this information to patients. RESULTS: In the hypothetical setting 95% of GPs considered cost-quality trade-offs relevant to their clinical decision-making given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. In all 90% stated that this consideration had been relevant in clinical decision-making within the last month. In the hypothetical setting 55% would inform their patients that they considered a cost-quality trade-off relevant to their clinical decisions given the economic impact of such trade-offs on the healthcare system. The most common reason (68%) given for not wanting to inform patients about this matter was the belief that the information would not prove useful to patients. In the hypothetical setting cost-quality trade-offs were considered relevant significantly more often in connection with concerns about costs to the patient (86%) than they were in connection with concerns about costs to the healthcare system (55%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although readiness to consider cost-quality trade-offs relevant to clinical decisions is prevalent among GPs in Denmark, only half of GPs would disclose to patients that they consider this relevant to their clinical decision-making. The results of this study raise two important ethical problems. First, under Danish law physicians are required to inform patients about all equal treatments. The fact that only a few GPs would inform their patients about all of the relevant treatments therefore seems to contravene Danish law. Second, it is ethically controversial that physicians act as economic gatekeepers.