Mental Health and Morbidity of Caregivers and Co-Residents of individuals with Dementia: A Quasi-Experimental Design

Objectives: To determine if providing informal care to a co-resident with dementia symptoms places an additional risk on the likelihood of poor mental health or mortality compared to co-resident non-caregivers.
Design: A quasi-experimental design of caregiving and non-caregiving co-residents of individuals with dementia symptoms, providing a natural comparator for the additive effects of caregiving on top of living with an individual with dementia symptoms. 
Methods: Census records, providing information on household structure, intensity of caregiving, presence of dementia symptoms and self-reported mental health, were linked to mortality records over the following 33 months. Multi-level regression models were constructed to determine the risk of poor mental health and death in co-resident caregivers of individuals with dementia symptoms compared to co-resident non-caregivers, adjusting for the clustering of individuals within households.
Results: The cohort consisted of 10,982 co-residents (55.1% caregivers), with 12.1% of non-caregivers reporting poor mental health compared to 8.4% of intense caregivers (>20 hours of care per week). During follow-up the cohort experienced 560 deaths (245 to caregivers). Overall, caregiving co-residents were at no greater risk of poor mental health but had lower mortality risk than non-caregiving co-residents (ORadj=0.93, 95% CI 0.79, 1.10 and ORadj=0.67, 95% CI 0.56, 0.81, respectively); this lower mortality risk was also seen amongst the most intensive caregivers (ORadj=0.65, 95% CI 0.53, 0.79).
Conclusion: Caregiving poses no additional risk to mental health over and above the risk associated with merely living with someone with dementia, and is associated with a lower mortality risk compared to non-caregiving co-residents.

Adolescent substance use in the context of the family: a qualitative study of young people’s views on parent-child attachments, parenting style and parental substance use

Background: Adolescent substance use can place youth at risk of a range of poor outcomes. Few studies have attempted to explore in-depth young people’s perceptions of how familial processes and dynamics influence adolescent substance use.
Objectives: This paper aimed to explore risk and protective factors for youth substance use within the context of the family with a view to informing family based interventions.
Methods: Nine focus groups supplemented with participatory techniques were facilitated with a purposive sample of sixty-two young people (age 13-17 years) from post-primary schools across Northern Ireland. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
Results: Three themes emerged from the data: 1) parent-child attachments, 2) parenting style and 3) parental and sibling substance misuse. Parent-child attachment was identified as an important factor in protecting adolescents from substance use in addition to effective parenting particularly an authoritative style supplemented with parental monitoring and strong parent-child communication to encourage child disclosure. Family substance use was considered to impact on children’s substance use if exposed at an early age and the harms associated with parental substance misuse were discussed in detail. Both parent and child gender differences were cross-cutting themes.
Conclusion: Parenting programmes (tailored to mothers and fathers) may benefit young people via components on authoritative styles, parental monitoring, communication, nurturing attachments and parent-child conflict. Youth living with more complex issues, e.g. parental substance misuse, may benefit from programmes delivered beyond the family environment e.g. school based settings.

Care home managers’ knowledge of palliative care: a Northern Irish study

Commodification of retirement and the emergence of rural gated communities: The associated challenges for rural planning

Abstract:
This paper combines demographic ageing and retirement lifestyles with rural in-migration processes and suggests the emergence of a specific rural form of gated community; namely, park homes. All year round or permanent (as opposed to seasonal) residential mobile homes (resembling detached bungalows in design and appearance) are commonly referred to as 'park homes'. With a growing proportion of the UK population aged 65 and over, combined with increasing longevity, meeting the residential preferences and lifestyle aspirations of an ageing population is potentially 'big business' for the private sector. Park home living, with their resident age restrictions (normally 50 years and over), is increasingly marketed as a retirement option in rural and coastal locations of the UK. However, many areas are often remote with declining populations and limited community services. Operators have sought to tap into retiree aspirations for a 'place in the country' and 'sell' the concept of park home living as a specific form of housing, community and lifestyle. Park homes are frequently marketed as a means to release equity from the sale of a large family home to fund a retirement lifestyle and as friendly communities of like-minded people, always willing to lend support or provide assistance if required. The physical and social composition of such sites represent a form of rural gated community. This paper seeks to identify the rural planning issues which emerge from such developments and asks: who are moving to park home sites and why? do park homes provide those who otherwise could not afford a 'place in the country' the option of rural living? does park home living live-up to residents' expectations of the rural idyll or retirement lifestyle? do they give rise to issues of gentrification and geriatrification of the countryside? what are the prospects for residents to 'age in place'? might ageing residents become financially trapped in such developments giving rise to park ghettoization? what are the associated challenges for rural policy-makers and public service providers?

Comparing long-term placements for young children in care: Does type of placement really matter?

This paper presents findings from the third phase of a longitudinal study, entitled Care Pathways and Outcomes, which has been tracking the placements and measuring outcomes for a population of children (n = 374) who were under the age of five and in care in Northern Ireland on the 31st March 2000. It explores how a sub-sample of these children at age nine to 14 years old were getting on in the placements provided for them, in comparative terms across five placement types: adoption; foster care; kinship foster care (with relatives); on Residence Order; and living with birth parents. This specifically focused on the development of attachment and self-concept from the perspective of the children, and behavioural and emotional function, and parenting stress, from the perspective of parents and carers. Findings showed no significant placement effect from the perspective of children, and a statistically weak, but descriptively compelling, effect from the perspective of parents. The findings challenge the notion of adoption as the gold standard in long-term placements, specifically from the perspective of children in terms of their parent/carer attachments and self-concept, and highlight what appears to be the central importance of placement longevity for delivering positive longer-term outcomes for these children, irrespective of placement type.

An exploration of men’s experiences of undergoing active surveillance for favourable-risk prostate cancer: A mixed methods study protocol

Background
Prostate cancer is one of the most common male cancers worldwide. Active Surveillance (AS) has been developed to allow men with lower risk disease to postpone or avoid the adverse side effects associated with curative treatments until the disease progresses. Despite the medical benefits of AS, it is reported that living with untreated cancer can create a significant emotional burden for patients.

Methods/design
The aim of this study is to gain insight into the experiences of men eligible to undergo AS for favourable-risk PCa.

This study has a mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consisting of two phases: quantitative followed by qualitative. Phase 1 has a multiple point, prospective, longitudinal exploratory design. Ninety men diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer will be assessed immediately post-diagnosis (baseline) and followed over a period of 12 months, in intervals of 3 month. Ninety age-matched men with no cancer diagnosis will also be recruited using peer nomination and followed up in the same 3 month intervals. Following completion of Phase 1, 10–15 AS participants who have reported both the best and worst psychological functioning will be invited to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Phase 2 will facilitate further exploration of the quantitative results and obtain a richer understanding of participants’ personal interpretations of their illness and psychological wellbeing.

Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to utilise early baseline measures; include a healthy comparison group; calculate sample size through power calculations; and use a mixed methods approach to gain a deeper more holistic insight into the experiences of men diagnosed with favourable-risk prostate cancer.