Prescription of Nonpharmacologic Interventions in Memory Clinics: Data from the Clinical Pathway for Alzheimer's Disease in China (CPAD) Study

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of the American Medical Directors Association Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105273
{"title":"Prescription of Nonpharmacologic Interventions in Memory Clinics: Data from the Clinical Pathway for Alzheimer's Disease in China (CPAD) Study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105273","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended to improve outcomes in dementia. Little is known about their prescription in practice, especially in non-Western populations. We investigated individual- and institution-level characteristics associated with nonpharmacologic interventions prescription in China.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A multicenter observational study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting and Participants</h3><div>This study used cross-sectional data from 889 community-dwelling outpatients living with dementia aged ≥45 years from a multicenter registry of 28 memory clinics in China.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Prescription records of nonpharmacologic interventions, carer and clinic characteristics, and reasons for declining interventions were collected. Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the prescription.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Nonpharmacologic interventions were prescribed in 323 people (36.3%) with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Cognitive activities and carer training/support were the most prescribed interventions. Multilevel logistic regression showed that 73% of the variance in prescription was attributed to institutional characteristics of the memory clinic. Greater caregiving gain [odds ratio (OR), 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09], lower burden (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00), worse carer-perceived dyad relationship (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99), and family history of dementia (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.19-3.65) were individual-level factors associated with prescription. Among 440 people considered having a need but received no prescription, declined by user/carer was the main reason for not prescribing (70.7%). Skepticism about effectiveness by physicians/carers and carers being unable or lacking resources to use the interventions were the common reasons given.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><div>A relatively low prescription rate of nonpharmacologic interventions is related to both individual- and institution-level factors. Carer support and education, instrumental support, and prescription guidelines across specialties and sites are possible strategies to improve access to nonpharmacologic interventions in dementia care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024006959","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Nonpharmacologic interventions are recommended to improve outcomes in dementia. Little is known about their prescription in practice, especially in non-Western populations. We investigated individual- and institution-level characteristics associated with nonpharmacologic interventions prescription in China.

Design

A multicenter observational study.

Setting and Participants

This study used cross-sectional data from 889 community-dwelling outpatients living with dementia aged ≥45 years from a multicenter registry of 28 memory clinics in China.

Methods

Prescription records of nonpharmacologic interventions, carer and clinic characteristics, and reasons for declining interventions were collected. Multilevel logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the prescription.

Results

Nonpharmacologic interventions were prescribed in 323 people (36.3%) with mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Cognitive activities and carer training/support were the most prescribed interventions. Multilevel logistic regression showed that 73% of the variance in prescription was attributed to institutional characteristics of the memory clinic. Greater caregiving gain [odds ratio (OR), 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09], lower burden (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00), worse carer-perceived dyad relationship (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99), and family history of dementia (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.19-3.65) were individual-level factors associated with prescription. Among 440 people considered having a need but received no prescription, declined by user/carer was the main reason for not prescribing (70.7%). Skepticism about effectiveness by physicians/carers and carers being unable or lacking resources to use the interventions were the common reasons given.

Conclusions and Implications

A relatively low prescription rate of nonpharmacologic interventions is related to both individual- and institution-level factors. Carer support and education, instrumental support, and prescription guidelines across specialties and sites are possible strategies to improve access to nonpharmacologic interventions in dementia care.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
记忆门诊中的非药物干预处方:中国阿尔茨海默病临床路径(CPAD)研究数据。
目的:非药物干预被推荐用于改善痴呆症的治疗效果。但在实践中,尤其是在非西方人群中,人们对其处方知之甚少。我们调查了与中国非药物干预处方相关的个人和机构层面的特征:设计:一项多中心观察性研究:本研究使用了中国 28 家记忆诊所多中心登记的 889 名年龄≥45 岁的社区门诊痴呆患者的横断面数据:方法: 收集非药物干预处方记录、照护者和门诊特点以及拒绝干预的原因。采用多层次逻辑回归法确定与处方相关的因素:323名轻度认知障碍或痴呆症患者(36.3%)接受了非药物干预治疗。认知活动和照护者培训/支持是处方最多的干预措施。多层次逻辑回归显示,73%的处方差异归因于记忆诊所的机构特征。与处方相关的个人因素还包括:更大的护理收益(几率比 [OR],1.05;95% CI,1.02-1.09)、较低的负担(OR,0.97;95% CI,0.95-1.00)、护理者认为较差的二人关系(OR,0.83;95% CI,0.70-0.99)以及痴呆症家族史(OR,2.08;95% CI,1.19-3.65)。在 440 名被认为有需要但未获得处方的患者中,使用者/护理者拒绝是不开具处方的主要原因(70.7%)。医生/护理人员对疗效持怀疑态度以及护理人员无法或缺乏资源使用干预措施是常见的原因:非药物干预处方率相对较低与个人和机构层面的因素有关。照护者支持和教育、工具支持以及各专科和医疗机构的处方指南是改善痴呆症照护中非药物干预的可能策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
6.60%
发文量
472
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: JAMDA, the official journal of AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, is a leading peer-reviewed publication that offers practical information and research geared towards healthcare professionals in the post-acute and long-term care fields. It is also a valuable resource for policy-makers, organizational leaders, educators, and advocates. The journal provides essential information for various healthcare professionals such as medical directors, attending physicians, nurses, consultant pharmacists, geriatric psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, and others involved in providing, overseeing, and promoting quality
期刊最新文献
Higher Magnesium Intake Is Associated With a Lower Risk of Frailty in Older Adults. Emerging Digital Technologies Used for Fall Detection in Older Adults in Aged Care: A Scoping Review. Association Between Time Since Smoking Cessation and Frailty Trajectory Among Community-Dwelling Older People: English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. ORIENT Diet: A Potential Neuroprotective Dietary Pattern for Chinese Stroke High-Risk Population. Designing LTC Physical Work Environments to Support Worker Well-being: A Review and Recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1