ALBERT

Description: Older adults face the highest risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. We investigated a one-year change in emotions and factors associated with emotional distress immediately after the onset of the pandemic, with emphasis on older age. Methods: The online Norwegian Citizen Panel includes participants drawn randomly from the Norwegian Population Registry. Emotional distress was defined as the sum score of negative (anxious, worried, sad or low, irritated, and lonely) minus positive emotions (engaged, calm and relaxed, happy). Results: Respondents to both surveys (n = 967) reported a one-year increase in emotional distress, mainly driven by elevated anxiety and worrying, but we found no difference in change by age. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression comparing older age, economy-, and health-related factors showed that persons in their 60s (ß −1.87 (95%CI: −3.71, −0.04)) and 70s/80s (ß: −2.58 (−5.00, −0–17)) had decreased risk of emotional distress relative to persons under 60 years. Female gender (2.81 (1.34, 4.28)), expecting much lower income (5.09 (2.00, 8.17)), uncertainty whether infected with SARS-Cov2 (2.92 (1.21, 4.63)), and high self-rated risk of infection (1.77 (1.01, 2.53)) were associated with high levels of emotional distress. Conclusions: Knowledge of national determinants of distress is crucial to tailor accurate public health interventions in future outbreaks.

Description: Background Nearly 19 million people across OECD countries are living with dementia, and millions of family caregivers are affected by the disease. The costs of informal care are estimated to represent 40–75% of the total dementia cost exceeding formal care time and medical costs. Objective To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality and factors associated with high informal care hours per month that increase societal costs, and to identify what type of interventions may alleviate the entire burden of informal and formal caregiving. Methods The systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (15.12.2020). A search in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and web of science for observational studies, cost-effectiveness, and cost of illness (COI) analyses on resource utilization in dementia (RUD) was conducted on 1 December 2020. Our inclusion criteria included a requirement that studies had to use the original RUD, RUD-FOCA or RUD lite in terms of hours or days per month, and costs as primary or secondary outcome, OECD countries, within the last 20 years and a sample population comprising persons with dementia (PwD) ≥65 years and their caregivers. We followed the PRISMA, GRADE, PICO guidelines and Drummond criteria to assess the methodology and quality of the studies. Results Of 307 studies, 26 cross-sectional and 3 longitudinal cohort studies were included in the analyses. Two studies had a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. The methods and cost categories in each study varied widely. Disease severity, caregiver factors, and behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) were associated with high informal care hours and societal cost. One RCT found no effect of a non-pharmacological intervention on informal care hours, yet another RCT found a cost-effective impact of an in-home respite care programme reducing informal care burden and costs. Conclusion The divergent use of the RUD components within included studies encourage more harmonized analyses. There are only two RCTs on RUD, one of which shows a significant treatment effect. Larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required in future RCTs with dedicated focus on cost-enhancing and resource intensive factors such as disease severity and BPSD. Novel interventions must diversify between caregiver and PwD groups. PROSPERO registration CRD42021226388.