A sample of 22 persons who care for relatives exhibiting initial symptoms of senile dementia were administered paper-and- pencil questionnaires to determine their level of subjective burden and psychological symptomatology. Each participant's attributional style was measured on an internal-external dimension, and their causal attributions regarding their relative's symptomatic behaviors were assessed. Results indicated that attributional style did not predict specific attributions about illness-related behaviors, but the tendency to not blame an afflicted relative for their behavior was predictive of subjective burden and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Subjective burden was found to predict feelings of hostility in caregivers.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of environmental density on the behavior (Disruptive and Nondisruptive) of elderly residents with dementia living on a special care unit. A building project that led to relocation of residents from high density units to units that varied in density (low vs. high) provided a natural context for this study. Disruptive and Nondisruptive behavior are composite variables that together include the full range of behavioral responses. Both are composed of several subvariables. Data were collected using direct behavioral observation using the Environment-Behavior Interaction Code (Stewart & Hiscock, 1992b) and a hand-held computer. The first objective of the study was to examine behavior patterns in relation to density and privacy. This objective was addressed with a quasi-experimental design (Study 1), in which three hypotheses were tested. It was predicted that residents who moved from a high density unit to a low density unit would exhibit a greater reduction in rate of Disruptive behavior (Hypothesis 1) and a greater increase in rate of Nondisruptive behavior (Hypothesis 2), compared to residents in a constant high density condition. It was also predicted that use of Private Time (time spent alone in one's bedroom) would be greater on the low density unit, where residents had private rooms (Hypothesis 3). Results of Study 1 provided support for Hypotheses 1 and 2, in relation to comparisons with the External Comparison Group only. Within subjects analyses provided additional support for Hypothesis 1 (Disruptive behavior). Hypothesis 3 (Private Time) was also supported. The second objective of the study was to explore the perceptions of family and staff caregivers with regard to the effect of the environment on resident behavior. This study was addressed with a qualitative design (Study 2) using the grounded theory method. Participants in Study 2 described the needs of residents with dementia in relation to the physical and social environment, and the outcomes that occurred when these needs were met or not met. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

No description available.

<p>Diss. (sammanfattning) Umeå : Umeå universitet, 1980, härtill 5 uppsatser.</p> / digitalisering@umu

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1993.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Michigan, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

No description available.

This research project was a systematic evaluation of the effects of a personalized system of prosthetic aids to memory established in the home environment for individuals with mild to moderate dementia. The system of aids developed were in the form of a free-standing "Memory Center" unit. Caregivers were responsible for actively training their relatives to use the aids to compensate for deficits in orientation and memory for information necessary for daily functioning. The investigation was conducted in two phases, using a modified multiple baseline across subjects design. The two clients in Phase I met research criteria for Alzheimer type dementia and received a clinical dementia rating of moderate progression. Of the three clients in Phase II, two satisfied research criteria for Alzheimer type dementia, while one met research criteria for vascular dementia. All three were determined to have mild dementia. The effects of the intervention on the clients and the caregivers were examined over a four week intervention period and at a one month follow-up. The primary question addressed was whether clients could be trained to effectively use the prosthetic aids to orient themselves and compensate for deficits in memory function. This was assessed via daily assessments of verbal orientation. Weekly ratings of the behavioral functioning of clients were provided by the caregivers. And finally, caregivers rated their own stress and mood levels on a weekly basis throughout the study. Although the rates of learning varied, all of the clients increased their levels of verbal orientation following the introduction of the prosthetic aids and training. Evidence for generalized effects on the behavioral functioning of the clients was found. Overall, the clients were rated as expressing fewer negative emotions and as evidencing more oriented behaviors and less confused and disturbed behaviors during the intervention and at follow-up. Overall, the caregivers reported a consistent pattern of decline in their levels of stress and dysphoric mood. A common area of improvement was a reduction in negative emotions felt and expressed toward their relatives. Factors related to the success of the intervention and potential causal elements of change were discussed. Finally, recommendations for clinical practice and future research were provided. / Ph. D.

No / Objectives This paper describes DCM 8 and reports on the initial validation study of DCM 8. Methods Between 2001-2003, a series of international expert working groups were established to examine various aspects of DCM with the intention of revising and refining it. During 2004-2005 the revised tool (DCM 8) was piloted in seven service settings in the UK and validated against DCM 7th edition. Results At a group score level, WIB scores and spread of Behavioural Category Codes were very similar, suggesting that group scores are comparable between DCM 7 and 8. Interviews with mappers and focus groups with staff teams suggested that DCM 8 was preferable to DCM 7th edition because of the clarification and simplification of codes; the addition of new codes relevant to person-centred care; and the replacement of Positive Events with a more structured recording of Personal Enhancers. Conclusions DCM 8 appears comparable with DCM 7th edition in terms of data produced and is well received by mappers and dementia care staff.