Monica Cations1,2, Natalie May1,2, Maria Crotty1,2, Lee-Fay Low3, Lindy Clemson2,3,4, Craig Whitehead1,2, James McLoughlin5, Kate Swaffer6,7, Kate E Laver1,2. 1. College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, South Australia. 2. NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, The University of Sydney, New South Wales. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales. 4. ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research, The University of Sydney, New South Wales. 5. College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, South Australia. 6. University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Dementia Alliance International, Ankeny, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is not incorporated into the usual care pathway for dementia despite increasing demand from key advocates. Clinician views regarding the relevance of rehabilitation in dementia care are not well known. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of health professionals regarding barriers to provision of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs for people with dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixteen health professionals from a variety of settings and professional backgrounds were purposively sampled using maximum variation sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore attitudes toward the care of people with dementia and beliefs about the feasibility and value of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in this population. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Participating clinicians acknowledged problems with existing dementia care pathways in Australia but rarely conceptualized rehabilitation as relevant to this pathway. Analyses yielded two main and related themes: (i) difficulty defining worthwhile outcomes of a rehabilitation program for people with dementia and (ii) perceived barriers to participation in this population. Clinicians felt that achievable outcomes for people with dementia were not sufficiently worthwhile for investment. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Broader acceptance of multidisciplinary rehabilitation as relevant to dementia care will require a reframing of practice that both educates emerging health professionals regarding the outcomes that may be achievable for people with dementia and persuades staff to appreciate that the investment is worthwhile.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary rehabilitation is not incorporated into the usual care pathway for dementia despite increasing demand from key advocates. Clinician views regarding the relevance of rehabilitation in dementia care are not well known. This qualitative study explored the perspectives of health professionals regarding barriers to provision of multidisciplinary rehabilitation programs for people with dementia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixteen health professionals from a variety of settings and professional backgrounds were purposively sampled using maximum variation sampling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore attitudes toward the care of people with dementia and beliefs about the feasibility and value of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in this population. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Participating clinicians acknowledged problems with existing dementia care pathways in Australia but rarely conceptualized rehabilitation as relevant to this pathway. Analyses yielded two main and related themes: (i) difficulty defining worthwhile outcomes of a rehabilitation program for people with dementia and (ii) perceived barriers to participation in this population. Clinicians felt that achievable outcomes for people with dementia were not sufficiently worthwhile for investment. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Broader acceptance of multidisciplinary rehabilitation as relevant to dementia care will require a reframing of practice that both educates emerging health professionals regarding the outcomes that may be achievable for people with dementia and persuades staff to appreciate that the investment is worthwhile.
Authors: Nathan M D'Cunha; Andrew J McKune; Stephen Isbel; Jane Kellett; Ekavi N Georgousopoulou; Nenad Naumovski Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Katherine S McGilton; Alexia Cumal; Dana Corsi; Shaen Gingrich; Nancy Zheng; Astrid Escrig-Pinol Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-03-06 Impact factor: 2.655