Abstract:Background: Agitation and aggression are prevalent in dementia and put heavy strains on caregivers. Validated assessment tools measuring these symptoms are required to evaluate patients before therapy and during the follow-up period. Given the daily routine in nursing homes, abbreviated instruments are preferable. The Brief Agitation Rating Scale (BARS) is a short form of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. Our aim was to examine the Norwegian version of the BARS by performing a factor analysis. Methods: … Show more
“…Agitation was measured according to the NPI agitation score at each follow-up point, which could take one of nine values (0, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,12), with higher values indicating more severe levels of agitation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…l Level 2b: lower-quality RCTs and higher-quality non-randomised studies (scoring ≤ 11). l Level 2c: moderate-quality non-randomised studies (scoring [6][7][8][9]. l Level 4: these scored < 6.…”
“…Agitation was measured according to the NPI agitation score at each follow-up point, which could take one of nine values (0, 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,12), with higher values indicating more severe levels of agitation.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…l Level 2b: lower-quality RCTs and higher-quality non-randomised studies (scoring ≤ 11). l Level 2c: moderate-quality non-randomised studies (scoring [6][7][8][9]. l Level 4: these scored < 6.…”
“…The BARS is a subscale of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) [44]. The Norwegian version [45,46] consists of 9 items: hitting, pushing, grabbing, wandering, restlessness, repetitive sentences, repetitive mannerisms, complaining and making strange noises. The frequencies of these symptoms are rated from 1 (never) to 7 (several times per hour), resulting in a minimum score of 9 and a maximum score of 63.…”
Aims: We examined whether Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) or the VIPS practice model (VPM) is more effective than education of the nursing home staff about dementia (control group) in reducing agitation and other neuropsychiatric symptoms as well as in enhancing the quality of life among nursing home patients. Methods: A 10-month three-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial compared DCM and VPM with control. Of 624 nursing home patients with dementia, 446 completed follow-up assessments. The primary outcome was the change on the Brief Agitation Rating Scale (BARS). Secondary outcomes were changes on the 10-item version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) and the Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) scale. Results: Changes in the BARS score did not differ significantly between the DCM and the control group or between the VPM and the control group after 10 months. Positive differences were found for changes in the secondary outcomes: the NPI-Q sum score as well as the subscales NPI-Q agitation and NPI-Q psychosis were in favour of both interventions versus control, the QUALID score was in favour of DCM versus control and the CSDD score was in favour of VPM versus control. Conclusions: This study failed to find a significant effect of both interventions on the primary outcome. Positive effects on the secondary outcomes indicate that the methods merit further investigation.
“…This finding is in contrast to others, who has found that aggressive behaviour could be treated as a separate dimension for nursing home residents. [52] This further underscores the point that some IADL variables have a strong cognitive element. Thus, the distinction between physical and cognitive variables may be more relevant than that between ADL, IADL and cognitive variables.…”
Background and objective: For practical policy purposes variables describing disability and impairment should be aggregated into broader factors. By using data from a Norwegian mandatory system the objective of this study was to analyse whether the number of factors describing the need for long-term care differs between recipients of home care and nursing home residents and according to the age or gender of long-term care recipients. The hierarchical order of the variables within each factor is determined to assess whether there are important informational gaps in the description of recipients. Methods: Data are from a mandatory system characterizing all recipients of public long term care in Norway. Two groups of public care recipients were included: elderly (67 years and older) individuals receiving home care services (N = 2,493) and patients in nursing homes (N = 1,218). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response analysis (IRT) were used to determine the number of factors and the hierarchical structures of the variables. Results: Two factors were sufficient to characterise need for both nursing home residents and home dwelling elderly. This result is not sensitive to stratification by age and gender. IRT analysis revealed large informational gaps suggesting that the used instrument fails to sufficiently capture important aspects of user needs. Conclusions: Factorization suggests that all elderly long term care users can be adequately described along two dimensions; on reflecting physical disability and one reflecting cognitive impairment. However, both the number of factors and the variable contained in each factor are likely to depend on the instrument used to characterise LTC users. Large informational gaps suggest a need to supplement the national information system used in Norway.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.