BackgroundPeople with dementia and informal carers often access formal care late in the process of dementia. The barriers and facilitators to service use from the perspectives of different stakeholders involved are not well understood. Thus, we aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators of access to and utilisation of formal care from the perspectives of people with dementia, their informal carers and health and social care professionals.MethodFocus groups with people with dementia, informal carers and professionals were conducted in eight European countries. Recruitment targeted people with dementia, informal carers with experience of formal care and professionals involved in providing (access to) formal care. Qualitative content analysis using open coding was used on a national level. Cross-national synthesis was based on the translated national reports.ResultsOverall, 55 focus groups with 261 participants were conducted, involving 51 people with dementia, 96 informal carers and 114 professionals. Sixteen categories describing barriers and facilitators were identified, referring to three global themes: Aspects related to 1) individuals involved, 2) the system or 3) overarching aspects. The attitudes and beliefs of people with dementia and their carers may have a major impact, and they often serve as barriers. Formal care was perceived as a threat to the individual independence of people with dementia and was thus avoided as long as possible. A healthcare professional serving as a constant key contact person could be an essential facilitator to overcome these barriers. Contact should be initiated proactively, as early as possible, and a trusting and consistent relationship needs to be established. Beyond that, the findings largely confirm former research and show that barriers to accessing and using formal care still exist across Europe despite a number of national and European initiatives.ConclusionFurther investigations are needed to elaborate how the concept of a key contact person could be integrated with existing case management approaches and how the independence and autonomy of people with dementia can be strengthened when formal care needs to be accessed and used. These may be meaningful facilitators regarding enhanced access to formal care for people with dementia and their families.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0816-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives:To explore reasons for institutionalization of people with dementia according to informal caregivers as well as variation in reasons between countries.Design: An explorative cross-sectional study was conducted in eight European countries. Setting:Per country a minimum of three long-term care facilities, offering care and accommodation as a package, participated in this study. Participating countries were selected to represent different geographic areas in Europe. Participants:Of the 791 informal caregivers involved in the RightTimePlaceCare project of people with dementia who were recently admitted to a long-term care facility, 786 were included for this study. Measurements:As part of a semi-structured interview, informal caregivers were asked the main reason for institutionalization in an open-ended question. Answers were categorized according to a conventional coding approach. All reasons were then quantified and tested. Results:Mainly patient related reasons were stated, such as neuropsychiatric symptoms (25%), care dependency (24%) and cognition (19%). Neuropsychiatric symptoms were among the most often mentioned reasons in the majority of countries. Beside patient related reasons, caregiver burden and the inability of the informal caregiver to care for the patient were stated as reasons (both 15%). Further analyses showed countries differ significantly in reasons according to informal caregivers. Additionally, reasons were analysed for spouses and child-caregivers, showing that spouses more often stated reasons related to themselves compared to child-caregivers. Conclusion:Multiple reasons contribute to the institutionalization for people with dementia, with several factors that may influence why there were country differences. Variation in the organization of dementia care and cultural aspects, or the relationship between the informal caregiver and person with dementia may be factors influencing the reasons. Because of a wide variation in reasons between countries, no one-size-fits-all approach can be offered to guide informal caregivers when facing the possibility of institutionalization of the person with dementia.

BackgroundThe literature describes the obstacles to sufficient care faced by people with dementia and their informal caregivers. Although factors influencing access and utilisation are frequently studied, the body of knowledge lacks an overview of aspects related to influence. The frequently used Behavioural Model of Health Care Use (BM) could be used to structure and explain these aspects. An adaptation of the BM emphasises psychosocial influences and appears to enrich the understanding of the use of long-term care for dementia.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review with the aim of providing an overview of the aspects influencing the access to and utilisation of formal community care in dementia. Our search covered the PubMed, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index and PsychInfo databases, as well as grey literature. Two researchers assessed the full texts for eligibility. A data extraction form was developed and tested. We analysed the main topics investigated by the studies and mapped and described the investigated psychosocial aspects according to the BM after narratively summarising the findings. We used the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to critically appraise the included studies.ResultsA total of 94 studies were included: n = 55 with quantitative designs, 35 with qualitative designs and four with mixed methods. The studies investigated different services, mainly focusing on health care services. One third of the studies provided information regarding the severity of dementia. The most frequently investigated main topics were ethnicity and attitudes towards services. Psychosocial aspects were frequently investigated, although few studies considered the perspectives of people with dementia. Approximately half of the studies reported a theoretical framework. The adapted BM facilitated the structuring and description of psychosocial aspects. However, this instrument did not address topics beyond the scope of psychosocial aspects, such as sociodemographic characteristics.ConclusionsThe access to and utilisation of formal community care for dementia can only be partly explained by individual influencing aspects. Therefore, a theoretical framework would likely help to describe this complex subject. Our findings indicate that the psychosocial categories of the adapted BM enriched the original BM, and that people with dementia should more often be included in healthcare service research to ensure a better understanding of the barriers to accessing formal community care.

Cross-country differences may be related to differences in health and social care systems. Taking this into account, informal caregiver interventions need to be tailored to (country specific) contexts and (individual) needs. Findings highlight the positive impact of admission to institutional long-term care on informal caregiver well-being.

Objective: The Actifcare (Access to timely formal care) study investigated needs of people with dementia and their families during the phase in which formal care is being considered, and examined whether higher need levels are related to lower quality of life (QOL). Method: From eight European countries 451 people with dementia and their carers participated. Needs were measured with the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly. QOL was measured with the QOL-AD, and carer quality of life was measured with the CarerQol. The relationship between needs and QOL was analysed with multiple regression analyses. Results: Needs were expressed in the domains of psychological distress, daytime activities, company and information. People with dementia rated their unmet needs significantly lower than their carers: the mean number of self-rated unmet needs was 0.95, whereas the mean proxy ratings were 1.66. For met needs, the self-rated mean was 5.5 and was 8 when proxy-rated. The level of needs reported was negatively associated with QOL for both. Conclusion:The study results show that informal carers reported almost twice as many needs as people with dementia. The domains in which needs are expressed should be the primary focus for interventions to support QOL. The perspectives of people with dementia are informative when identifying needs.