Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on well-being and virtual care for people living with dementia and care partners living in the community

  1. Pamela Roach
  2. Angela Zwiers
  3. Emily Cox
  4. Karyn Fischer
  5. Anna Charlton
  6. Colin B Josephson
  7. Scott B Patten
  8. Dallas Seitz
  9. Zahinoor Ismail
  10. Eric E Smith

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated public health measures that have impacted the provision of care for people living with dementia and their families. Additionally, the isolation that results from social distancing may be harming well-being for families as formal and informal supports become less accessible. For those living with dementia and experiencing agitation, social distancing may be even harder to maintain, or social distancing could potentially aggravate dementia-related neuropsychiatric symptoms. To understand the lived experience of social and physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, we remotely interviewed 21 participants who normally attend a dementia specialty clinic in Calgary, Alberta, during a period where essential businesses were closed and health care had abruptly transitioned to telemedicine. A reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview and field note data. The impacts of the public health measures in response to the pandemic emerged through iterative analysis in three main categories of experience: (1) personal, (2) health services, and (3) health status (of both persons living with dementia and care partner). Isolation and mental health needs emerged as important impacts to family experiences. This in-depth understanding of the needs and experiences of the pandemic for people living with dementia suggests that innovative means are urgently needed to facilitate provision of remote medicine and also social interaction and integration.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1177/1471301220977639
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.04.20122192: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.04.20122192v1 on medRxiv