Dataset Information

Flattening the quality of life curve? A prospective person-centred study from Norway amid COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We examined multidimensional, heterogeneous reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures to provide further insights into the developmental processes of risk and adaptation.

Method

We used three-wave questionnaire data from 8156 individuals participating in the Norwegian County Public Health Survey assessed 1-5 months before and three (June 2020) and nine (December 2020) months after the outbreak. Latent profile and latent transition analyses were used to identify latent quality of life (QoL) classes and multiform changes, their probabilities, and predictors.

Results

We identified five distinct QoL classes of varying proportions, namely Flourishing (i.e. 24-40%), Content (31-46%), Content-Symptomatic (8-10%), Languishing (14-20%), and Troubled (2-5%). Despite higher levels of negative affect and lower levels of life satisfaction and positive emotions, most individuals remained in their pre-pandemic QoL profiles. Yet, changes occurred for a meaningful proportion, with transition to a less favourable class more common than to a favourable. Between time 1 and 3, the flourishing and troubled groups decreased by 40% and 60%, while the content and languishing groups increased by 48% and 43%, respectively. Favourable pre-pandemic relational (marital status, support, interpersonal trust, and belonging), health, and economy-related status predicted significantly lower odds of belonging to the high-risk groups both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic.

Conclusions

Overall, this study shows lower levels of QoL amid the COVID-19 pandemic, but substantial stability in the QoL distribution, and an overall levelling of the QoL distribution. Our findings also underscore the importance of financial, health-related, and social capital to QoL.

SUBMITTER: Nes RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8942803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Agitation is a common, challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centred care and psychosocial intervention incorporating an antipsychotic review, WHELD, on QoL, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine its cost. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This was a randomised controlled cluster trial conducted between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 that compared the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the intervention received staff training in person-centred care and social interaction and education regarding antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic review), followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy). Secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version [NPI-NH]), antipsychotic use, global deterioration (Clinical Dementia Rating), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale [QUIS]), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and cost. Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. In all, 847 people were randomised to WHELD or TAU, of whom 553 completed the 9-month randomised controlled trial. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy Z score 2.82, p = 0.0042; mean difference 2.54, SEM 0.88; 95% CI 0.81, 4.28; Cohen's D effect size 0.24). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68, p = 0.0076; mean difference 4.27, SEM 1.59; 95% CI -7.39, -1.15; Cohen's D 0.23) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-NH Z score 3.52, p < 0.001; mean difference 4.55, SEM 1.28; 95% CI -7.07,-2.02; Cohen's D 0.30). Benefits were greatest in people with moderately severe dementia. There was a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94; 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, p = 0.03; Cohen's D 0.55). There were no statistically significant differences between WHELD and TAU for the other outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL-Proxy, CMAI, and NPI-NH outcomes with the WHELD intervention. Antipsychotic drug use was at a low stable level in both treatment groups, and the intervention did not reduce use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to TAU, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. An additional limitation was the inherent challenge of assessing QoL in this patient group. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that the WHELD intervention confers benefits in terms of QoL, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented in nursing homes. Future work should consider how to facilitate sustainability of the intervention in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62237498.

Project description:IntroductionEffective engagement of underrepresented communities in health research and policy remains a challenge due to barriers that hinder participation. Our study had two objectives: (1) identify themes of person-centred care (PCC) from perspectives of diverse patients/caregivers that would inform the development of person-centred quality indicators (PC-QIs) for evaluating the quality of PCC and initiatives to improve PCC and (2) explore innovative participatory approaches to engage ethnocultural communities in qualitative research.MethodsDrawing on participatory action research methods, we partnered with a community-based organization to train six 'Community Brokers' from the Chinese, Filipino, South Asian, Latino-Hispanic, East African and Syrian communities, who were engaged throughout the study. We also partnered with the provincial health organization to engage their Patient and Family Advisory, who represented further aspects of diversity. We conducted focus group discussions with patients/caregivers to obtain their perspectives on their values, preferences and needs regarding PCC. We identified themes through our study and engaged provincial stakeholders to prioritize these themes for informing the development of PC-QIs and codesign initiatives for improving PCC.ResultsEight focus groups were conducted with 66 diverse participants. Ethnocultural communities highlighted themes related to access and cost of care, language barriers and culture, while the Patient and Family Advisory emphasized patient and caregiver engagement. Together with provincial stakeholders, initiatives were identified to improve PCC, such as codesigning innovative models of training and evaluation of healthcare providers.ConclusionIncorporating patient and community voices requires addressing issues related to equity and understanding barriers to effective and meaningful engagement.Patient or public contributionPatient and public engagement was central to our research study. This included partnership with a community-based organization, with a broad network of ethnocultural communities, as well as the provincial health service delivery organization, who both facilitated the ongoing engagement of diverse patients/caregiver communities throughout our study including designing the study, recruiting participants, collecting and organizing data, interpreting findings and mobilizing knowledge. Drawing from participatory action research methods, patients and the public were involved in the codesign of the PC-QIs and initiatives to improve PCC in the province based on the findings from our study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence of head and neck cancer is increasing slightly. Head and neck cancer but also it's necessary and often successful treatment may affect general domains of health-related quality of life and provoke a variety of adverse symptoms and side effects, both during and after treatment. The objective of this study was to compare a person-centred care intervention in terms of health-related quality of life, disease-specific symptoms or problems, with traditional care as a control group for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS:In this randomized controlled trial, person-centred-care intervention and traditional care (control) groups comprised 54 and 42 patients, respectively. Outcome measures used were: the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-C35. Both groups answered the questionnaires at baseline and after 4, 10, 18 and 52 weeks from start of treatment. The questionnaires' scores were compared between groups by using independent samples test and non-parametric test for continuous variables. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used. Longitudinal data were analysed using generalized linear models for normally distributed repeated measures data. RESULTS:At baseline, the intervention and control groups were comparable in terms of medical and sociodemographic variables, clinical characteristics, health-related quality of life and disease-specific symptoms or problems. At all the follow-up points, even during the worst period for the patients, the person-centred-care group consistently reported better scores than the control group. The differences were numerically but not always statistically significant. When testing longitudinal data, statistically significant results were found for head and neck cancer-specific problems, swallowing (p?=?0.014), social eating (p?=?0.048) and feeling ill (p?=?0.021). CONCLUSIONS:The results from this study suggest that adopting the person-centred-care concept practiced here could be a way to improve function and wellbeing in patients with head and neck cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was retrospectively registered in 2016-12-05 in Clinical Trials gov. "Can a Person-centred-care Intervention Improve Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer" registration number: NCT02982746.