The goal of this commentary is to highlight the ageism that has emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 20 international researchers in the field of ageing have contributed to this document. This commentary discusses how older people are misrepresented and undervalued in the current public discourse surrounding the pandemic. It points to issues in documenting the deaths of older adults, the lack of preparation for such a crisis in long-term care homes, how some ‘protective’ policies can be considered patronising and how the initial perception of the public was that the virus was really an older adult problem. This commentary also calls attention to important intergenerational solidarity that has occurred during this crisis to ensure support and social-inclusion of older adults, even at a distance. Our hope is that with this commentary we can contribute to the discourse on older adults during this pandemic and diminish the ageist attitudes that have circulated.

Background With rural population aging there are growing numbers of people with dementia in rural and remote settings. The role of primary health care (PHC) is critical in rural locations, yet there is a lack of rural-specific PHC models for dementia, and little is known about factors influencing the development, implementation, and sustainability of rural PHC interventions. Using a community-based participatory research approach, researchers collaborated with a rural PHC team to co-design and implement an evidence-based interdisciplinary rural PHC memory clinic in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. This paper reports barriers and facilitators to developing, implementing, and sustaining the intervention. Methods A qualitative longitudinal process evaluation was conducted over two and half years, from pre- to post-implementation. Data collection and analyses were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) which consists of 38 constructs within five domains: innovation characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics, and process. Data were collected via focus groups with the PHC team and stakeholders, smaller team workgroup meetings, and team member interviews. Analysis was conducted using a deductive approach to apply CFIR codes to the data and an inductive analysis to identify barriers and facilitators. Results Across all domains, 14 constructs influenced development and implementation. Three domains (innovation characteristics, inner setting, process) were most important. Facilitators were the relative advantage of the intervention, ability to trial on a small scale, tension for change, leadership engagement, availability of resources, education and support from researchers, increased self-efficacy, and engagement of champions. Barriers included the complexity of multiple intervention components, required practice changes, lack of formal incentive programs, time intensiveness of modifying the EMR during iterative development, lack of EMR access by all team members, lack of co-location of team members, workload and busy clinical schedules, inability to justify a designated dementia care manager role, and turnover of PHC team members. Conclusions The study identified key factors that supported and hindered the development and implementation of a rural-specific strategy for dementia assessment and management in PHC. Despite challenges related to the rural context, the researcher-academic partnership was successful in developing and implementing the intervention.

There is a paucity of research exploring how spouses to older adults with multiple chronic conditions make meaning of their caregiving experience. For this study, we asked: What is the experience of spousal caregivers to persons with multiple chronic conditions? We applied Thorne's interpretive description approach, interviewing 18 spouses who provided a rich description of their caregiving experience; interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Themes were categorized according to challenges encountered, rewards gleaned, and sustaining strategies employed by participants in caregiving to their spouse with multiple chronic conditions. Unique findings relate to the challenges inherent in decision-making within the context of multiple chronic conditions. This article begins to address the gap in the literature regarding the caregiving experience within the context of multiple chronic conditions.

No abstract

This scoping review mapped and synthesized published literature related to education and support services for individuals with dementia and their caregivers living rurally. Specifically, we investigated education and support service needs, availability and use of services, barriers to service access and use, and solutions to these barriers. Empirical, English-language articles (2,381) were identified within MEDLINE, CINAHL, PSYCINFO, and EMBASE. Articles were screened according to Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) five-stage scoping review methodology and the recommendations of Levac et al. (2010). Findings suggest limited availability of rural dementia-related support and education services, particularly respite care and day programs. Service use varied across studies, with barriers including low knowledge regarding services, practicality, and resource issues (e.g., transportation, financial), values and beliefs, stigma, and negative perceptions of services. Solutions included tailored and person-centred services, technological service provision, accessibility assistance, inter-organization collaboration, education regarding services, and having a “point of entry” to service use.