Background: Chronic constipation is common in people with intellectual disabilities, and seems to be highly prevalent in people with severe or profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (SPIMD). However, there is no current widely accepted definition for the constipation experienced by these individuals. Aim: This Delphi study aims to compile a list of operationalized criteria and symptoms of constipation in people with SPIMD based on practical experiences of and consensus between experts supporting them. Methods: A two-round Delphi study with an intermediate evaluation and analyses was conducted. Parents and relatives of persons with SPIMD and support professionals were included. The panel answered statements and open questions about symptoms and criteria of constipation. They were also requested to provide their opinion about classifying criteria and symptoms into domains. Answers to statements were analysed separately after both rounds with regard to consensus rate and displayed qualitatively; answers to open questions were analysed deductively. Results: In the first Delphi round (n = 47), consensus was achieved on criteria within the domains 'Defecation’ and 'Physical features', that were assigned to broader categories. Symptoms retrieved within the domain ‘Behavioural/Emotional’ were brought back to the panel as statements. After the second Delphi round (n = 38), consensus was reached on questions about domains, and for eight criteria (domain ‘Defecation’ n = 5; domain ‘Physical features n = 3). Within the domain ‘Behavioural/Emotional’, consensus was achieved for five symptoms. Criteria and symptoms with consensus >70% were considered ‘generic’ and
DOCUMENT
IntroductionObservable dementia symptoms are hardly studied in people with severe/profound intellectual (and multiple) disabilities (SPI(M)D). Insight in symptomatology is needed for timely signaling/diagnosis. This study aimed to identify practice-based observations of dementia symptoms in this population.MethodsCare professionals and family members were invited to complete a survey about symptoms. Quantitatively analyzed survey data were further deepened through semi-structured interviews with care professionals having vast experience in signaling/diagnosing dementia in this population. Symptoms were categorized using a symptom matrix.ResultsSurvey respondents and interviewees frequently observed a decline in activities of daily living (ADL) functioning and behavioral and psychological changes, like increased irritability, anxiety, apathy and decreased eating/drinking behavior. Cognitive symptoms were particularly recognized in persons with verbal communication and/or walking skills. To lesser extent motor changes and medical comorbidities were reported.ConclusionIncreased insight in dementia symptoms contributes to developing a dedicated screening instrument for dementia in people with SPI(M)D.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT