ABSTRACTObjectives:In this large population study, we set out to examine the profile of mild behavioral impairment (MBI) by using the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) and to explore its factor structure when employed as a self-reported and informant-rated tool.Design:This was a population-based cohort study.Setting:Participants were recruited from the Platform for Research Online to Investigate Genetics and Cognition in Aging study (https://www.protect-exeter.org.uk).Participants:A total of 5,742 participant-informant dyads participated in the study.Measurements:Both participants and informants completed the MBI-C. The factor structure of the MBI-C was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis.Results:The most common MBI-C items, as rated by self-reported and informants, related to affective dysregulation (mood/anxiety symptoms), being present in 34% and 38% of the sample, respectively. The least common items were those relating to abnormal thoughts and perception (psychotic symptoms) (present in 3% and 6% of the sample, respectively). Only weak correlations were observed between self-reported and informant-reported MBI-C responses. Exploratory factor analysis for both sets of respondent answers indicated that a five-factor solution for the MBI-C was appropriate, reflecting the hypothesized structure of the MBI-C.Conclusion:This is the largest and most detailed report on the frequency of MBI symptoms in a nondementia sample. The full spectrum of MBI symptoms was present in our sample, whether rated by self-reported or informant report. However, we show that the MBI-C performs differently in self-reported versus informant-reported situations, which may have important implications for the use of the questionnaire in clinic and research.

BackgroundPsychosocial person-centred interventions are considered best practice for addressing complex behaviours and care needs such as agitation and anxiety, and for improving the quality of life of people with dementia in care homes. Dementia Care Mapping (DCM™) is an established practice development tool and process aimed to help care home staff deliver more person-centred care. To date, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of DCM™ and have found mixed results. These results are suggested to be the outcome of intervention implementation, which may be impacted by a range of factors. This study reports the barriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation in care homes found during the process evaluation conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial.MethodsEighteen of the 31 DCM™ intervention care homes were recruited to participate in the embedded process evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 83 participants, comprising care home managers, trained DCM™ users (mappers), expert external mappers, staff members, relatives, and residents.ResultsBarriers and facilitators to DCM™ implementation were found at the mapper level (e.g. motivation and confidence), the DCM™ intervention level (e.g. understanding of DCM™) and the care home level (e.g. staffing issues, manager support). Further barriers caused by the burden of trial participation were also identified (e.g. additional paperwork).ConclusionsImplementing DCM™ is complex and a greater consideration of potential barriers and facilitators in planning future studies and in practice could help improve implementation.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852, registered 16/01/2014.

The concepts of "defeat" (representing failed social struggle) and "entrapment" (representing an inability to escape from a situation) have emerged from the animal literature, providing insight into the health consequences of low social rank. Evolutionary models suggest that these constructs co-occur and can lead to the development of mental disorders, although there is limited empirical evidence supporting these predictions. Participants (N=172) were recruited from economically deprived areas in North England. Over half of participants (58%) met clinical cut-offs for depression and anxiety, therefore we conducted analyses to establish whether participant outcomes were dependent on baseline defeat and entrapment levels. Participants completed measures of defeat, entrapment, depression and anxiety at two time-points twelve months apart. Factor analysis demonstrated that defeat and entrapment were best defined as one factor, suggesting that the experiences co-occurred. Regression analyses demonstrated that changes in depression and anxiety between T1 and T2 were predicted from baseline levels of defeat and entrapment; however, changes in defeat and entrapment were also predicted from baseline depression and anxiety. There are implications for targeting perceptions of defeat and entrapment within psychological interventions for people experiencing anxiety and depression and screening individuals to identify those at risk of developing psychopathology.

Previous research has suggested that defeat (conceptualized as a failed social struggle) and entrapment (conceptualized as a perceived inability to escape from aversive situations) form a single construct that reliably predicts psychopathological outcomes in clinical and community settings. However, scales designed to assess defeat and entrapment measure the constructs separately, whereas recent evidence suggests a single scale would be appropriate. Existing scales may also be too lengthy to have clinical utility. The present study developed and evaluated a scale that measured both defeat and entrapment. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that defeat and entrapment were best defined by a single factor, and 8 items were selected that best represented this construct to form the short scale. The scale had high internal consistency (α = .88 to .94), showed criterion validity with hopelessness (r = .45 to .93) and incremental validity for caregiver burden when controlling for depression and positive symptoms of psychosis when controlling for hopelessness (β = .45 to .60). Additionally, the scale had excellent test-retest reliability using single measures absolute agreement intraclass correlation coefficients across 12 months (ricc = .88 to .92) within 4 samples: people with posttraumatic stress disorder, people with psychosis, care home employees, and people from community settings. The scale demonstrated known group validity through discrimination between clinical and nonclinical groups of participants. This scale could be implemented within therapeutic settings to help clinicians identify patients experiencing defeat and entrapment, and incorporate these factors into their clinical assessment and case formulations for treatment.

Background Providing cancer care and treatment for ageing populations with complicating comorbidities like dementia is a growing global challenge. This study aimed to examine the hospital-based cancer care and treatment challenges and support needs of people with dementia, and identify potential ways to address these. Methods A two-site ethnographic study in England involving semi-structured interviews, observations and accompanying conversations, and medical record review. Participants (N = 58) were people with dementia and comorbid cancer (n = 17), informal caregivers (n = 22) and hospital staff (n = 19). Ethnographically informed thematic analysis was conducted. Results There was an accumulated complexity of living with both illnesses simultaneously. People with dementia and families could feel confused and uninformed due to difficulties understanding, retaining and using cancer information, which impacted their informed treatment decision-making. Dementia increased the complexity and burden of travelling to and navigating unfamiliar hospital environments, frequent lengthy periods of waiting in hospital, and self-managing symptoms and side-effects at home. Oncology staff were often working without the full picture, due to variable documenting of dementia in medical records, dementia training was limited, and time and resource pressures impeded the highly individualised, flexible cancer care required by people with dementia. Supportive family carers were crucial in enabling people with dementia to access, navigate and undergo cancer treatment and care. Conclusions Dementia complicates cancer care in a range of ways accumulating across the cancer pathway. Our findings suggest there are several strategies and interventions, which we list here, with potential to improve cancer care and treatment for people with dementia and their families.