ana paula dando voz a pessoas com demência e seus palongan
Post on 18-Mar-2022
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Universidade de Aveiro 2021
Ana Paula Palongan de Oliveira
Dando voz a pessoas com demência e seus cuidadores sobre um programa de atividade física domiciliar: um estudo qualitativo Giving voice to people with the dementia and their carers about a home-based physical activity programme: a qualitative study
Universidade de Aveiro 2021
Ana Paula Palongan de Oliveira
Dando voz a pessoas com demência e seus cuidadores sobre um programa de atividade física domiciliar: um estudo qualitativo Giving voice to people with the dementia and their carers about a home-based physical activity programme: a qualitative study
Dissertação apresentada à Universidade de Aveiro para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Mestre em Gerontologia Aplicada, realizada sob a orientação científica da Professora Doutora Alda Sofia Pires de Dias Marques, Professora Coordenadora da Escola Superior de Saúde da Universidade de Aveiro.
Dedico esta dissertação aos meus pais, Edna e Benedito, a ̀minha avó, Isorema, e ao meu marido Marcos, pelo total apoio e incentivo em minhas escolhas, e pelo carinho e compreensão demonstrados desde sempre.
o júri
presidente Professora Doutora Liliana Xavier Marques de Sousa
Professora Associada c/ Agregação, Universidade de Aveiro
Arguente Professora Doutora Maria Cristina Damas Argel de Melo,
Professora Coordenadora, Instituto Politécnico do Porto - Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde do Porto
Orientadora Professora Doutora Alda Sofia Pires de Dias Marques,
Professora Coordenadora s/ Agregação, Universidade de Aveiro
agradecimentos
Dedico um profundo agradecimento à minha orientadora, Professora Doutora Alda Marques, por aceitar, conduzir, incentivar e apoiar o presente trabalho. À Sara Almeida, pela total dedicação, apoio científico e emocional, desde o início deste estudo. Aos participantes e seus familiares, pelo voto de confiança na partilha de testemunhos, permitindo que este trabalho fosse possível. Aos meus pais, Edna e Benedito, que sempre estiveram ao meu lado me apoiando ao longo de toda a minha trajetória. Ao meu marido Marcos pela compreensão e paciência demonstrada durante o período do projeto. À minha querida amiga, Marli, pela motivação e apoio incondicional. O meu mais sincero, obrigado.
palavras-chave
Motivadores, barreiras, impactos, exercício, cuidador informal, abordagem centrada na pessoa.
resumo
Introdução: A promoção de programas domiciliários de atividade física parece ser uma oportunidade de oferecer uma intervenção personalizada para manter a independência das pessoas com demência (PcD) por mais tempo. Embora resultados promissores destas intervenções na saúde física das PcD sejam conhecidos, a adesão à atividade física tem constituído um desafio e as opiniões das PcD e dos seus cuidadores informais são frequentemente negligenciadas. Ouvir as PcD e seus cuidadores é fundamental para identificar motivadores/facilitadores e barreiras à atividade física. O objetivo deste estudo foi explorar os motivadores/facilitadores, barreiras e impactos percebidos da participação num programa domiciliário de atividade física para PcD (LiFE4D) na perspetiva da PcD e seus cuidadores informais. Método: Foram conduzidas entrevistas curtas semiestruturadas com 15 pessoas com demência (n=9; 60% mulheres, 82 [75-84] anos, Addenbrooke´s Cognitive Examination III pontuação total 50,4 [22-72] pontos) e 9 cuidadores (n= 7; 77,8% mulheres, 72 [60-76] anos, 3 [2-4,5] anos a prestar cuidados). Realizou-se uma análise temática dedutiva com recurso ao software Web Qualitative Data Analysis. Resultados: Foram identificados 44 subtemas. Os subtemas foram divididos em 4 temas: barreiras, motivadores/facilitadores, impacto do programa e outros. As PcD identificaram 25 subtemas e os cuidadores identificaram 19 subtemas. Os participantes percecionaram mais motivadores/facilitadores do que barreiras para participar no LiFE4D; os subtemas reportados em comum foram exercícios fáceis e suporte profissional nos motivadores/facilitadores; e cansaço e falta de tempo nas barreiras. Apenas foram percecionados impactos positivos da participação no LiFE4D pelas PcD e seus cuidadores. Conclusão: Os participantes percecionaram mais motivadores/facilitadores do que barreiras para participar no LiFE4D. A abordagem individualizada centrada na pessoa e o envolvimento dos cuidadores facilitaram a adesão ao programa. Dificuldades como cansaço, problemas de saúde física e falta de tempo foram apontadas como principais barreiras. Embora existam alguns subtemas em comum, havia barreiras, motivadores/facilitadores e impactos que diferiam entre PcD e seus cuidadores. Tais diferenças devem ser exploradas a fim de melhorar as intervenções de atividade física direcionadas a esse público.
keywords
Motivators, barriers, impacts, exercise, informal carer, person-centered approach.
abstract
Introduction: The promotion of home-based physical activity programmes seems to be an opportunity to offer a personalised intervention to maintain the independence of people with dementia (PwD) for longer. Although promising results of these interventions in the physical health of PwD are known, adherence to physical activity has been a challenge and the opinions of PwD and their informal carers are often overlooked. Listening to PwD and their carers is essential to identify barriers, motivators/facilitators, to physical activity. The aim of this study was to explore the perceived barriers, motivators/facilitators and impacts of participation in a home-based physical activity programme for PwD (LiFE4D) from the perspective of PwD and their informal carers. Methods: Short semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 people with dementia (n=9; 60% women, 82 [75-84] years old, Addenbrooke´s Cognitive Examination - III total score 50.4 [22-72] points) and 9 carers (n=7, 77.8 % women, 72 [60-76] years, 3 [2-4.5] years providing care). Deductive thematic analysis was performed using the Web Qualitative Data Analysis software. Results: 44 subthemes were identified. The sub-themes were divided into 4 themes: barriers, motivators/facilitators, impacts of the programme and other subthemes. PwD identified 25 subthemes and carers identified 19 subthemes. Participants perceived more motivators/facilitators than barriers to participate in LiFE4D; the subthemes reported in common were easy exercises and professional support from motivators/facilitators; and tiredness and lack of time at the barriers. Only positive impacts of participation in LiFE4D were perceived by PwD and their carers. Conclusions: Participants perceived more motivators/facilitators than barriers of participating in LiFE4D. The individualised person-centred approach, and the carers involvement facilitated adherence to the programme. Difficulties such as tiredness, physical health problems and lack of time were seen as main barriers. Although there are some subthemes in common, there were barriers, motivators/facilitators barriers and impacts that differed between PwD and their carers. Such differences must be explored in order to improve physical activity interventions directed at this audience.
Abbreviations and/or acronyms
ACE-III - Addenbrooke´s Cognitive Examination III
ADL - Activities of daily living
LIFE - Lifestyle Integrated Functional Exercise
LiFE4D - Lifestyle Integrated Functional Exercise for People with Dementia
PwD - People with dementia
PcD – Pessoa com demência
WebQDA- Web Qualitative Data Analysis
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Design and ethics ............................................................................................................ 4
2.2. Recruitment of participants ............................................................................................ 4
2.3. Data collection ................................................................................................................ 5
2.4. Intervention ..................................................................................................................... 6
2.5. Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 8
3. Results .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.1. Participants ................................................................................................................... 10
3.2. Thematic analysis ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1. Perspective of people with dementia .......................................................................... 11
3.2.1.1. Barriers ........................................................................................................................ 12
3.2.1.2. Motivators/facilitators ................................................................................................. 12
3.2.1.3. Impacts of the programme ........................................................................................... 14
3.2.1.4. Other subthemes .......................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2. Perspective of carers ................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2.1. Barriers ........................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.2.2. Motivators/facilitators ................................................................................................. 15
3.2.2.3. Impacts of the programme ........................................................................................... 16
3.2.2.4. Other subthemes .......................................................................................................... 17
3.3. Contextual notes ........................................................................................................... 20
4. Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 21
5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 26 References.................................................................................................................................27
Annexes and Appendices
Annex I - Ethics approval.……………………………………………………………………33
Appendix I - Participants information sheet.…………………………………………………34
Appendix II - Interview guide carer.………….………………………………………………35
Appendix III - Interview guide people of dementia…………………………………………..36
List of Tables
Table 1 - Semi-structured interview guides for the people with dementia and their carers.06
Table 2 - LiFE4D design (per week) …………………………….………………………..07
Table 3 - Characteristics of participants…………………………………………………...10
Table 4 - Information on the context of care provided by the carers…………………...…11
Table 5 - Barriers, motivators/facilitators and impacts of the programme for participation in LiFE4D according to PwD…..………………………………………………………….17
Table 6 - Barriers, motivators/facilitators, and impacts of participating in LiFE4D according to carers perspective……………………………………………………………19
1
1. Introduction
Dementia is defined as a chronic or progressive syndrome, that impairs cognitive
function and declines the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADL) (Prince,
Albanese, Guerchet, & Prina, 2014). Worldwide, this syndrome is a major cause of
disability and dependence among older people (American Psychiatric Association, 2014;
DGS, 2016; World Health Organization, 2017). Dementia is currently considered a public
health priority with a substantial burden on health, social and economic systems (World
Health Organization, 2017). It is estimated that around 50 million people lives with
dementia worldwide, and around 205000 in Portugal (OCDE, 2017; World Health
Organization, 2017). Therefore, the growing number of people living with dementia
poses enormous personal, social and economic challenges to meet care demands and
costs (van der Wardt et al., 2019). Most people with dementia (PwD) live at home
(Alzheimer’s Disease International, 2018; Harrison et al., 2019), and despite all
challenges, it is their wish to continue to live in their homes for as long as possible, which
is also the recommendation of the World Health Organization and of several European
countries (OCDE, 2017; World Health Organization, 2012).
Physical activity is fundamental to maintain PwD living at home, since this non-
pharmacological intervention improves the performance of ADL, mobility and mood,
delays the decline in cognitive function, (Forbes, Forbes, Blake, Thiessen, & Forbes,
2015; Hernández et al., 2015; Souto Barreto, Demougeot, Pillard, Lapeyre-Mestre, &
Rolland, 2015) reduces the risk of falls and the rate of mortality, hospitalisations and
institutionalisations (Hancox et al., 2019; Pitkäl̈a et al., 2013). Physical activity is
therefore essential for maintaining the independence of PwD (Stubbs et al., 2014; World
Health Organization, 2010, 2012). However, PwD present low levels of physical activity,
spending around 66% of their day in low intense activity levels or in sedentary behaviour
(van Alphen, Hortobágyi, & van Heuvelen, 2016). Thus, there is an urgent need for
physical activity interventions aimed at preventing functional deterioration and
dependence to help PwD live well and longer in their homes (van der Wardt et al., 2019).
Physical activity have become an attractive option, given its simplicity, potential
positive benefits on physical health and effective costs (Cerga-Pashoja et al., 2015; Maki,
Sakurai, Okochi, Yamaguchi, & Toba, 2018; Prince et al., 2014). Actually, some physical
activity programmes have been available in community centres or institutions (Forbes et
2
al., 2015). However, high dropout rates and low adherence has been reported by several
studies (Nyman, Adamczewska, & Howlett, 2017; van der Wardt et al., 2017, 2019). This
can be explained because the majority of physical activity programmes for PwD were
carried out in institutions, at strict times and with structured physical exercises that hardly
fit into the daily routines of this population, in addition to the need for transportation and
one person (e.g., carer) to accompany them during the programme (Opdenacker, Boen,
Coorevits, & Delecluse, 2008). The support of the carer and/or significant person is an
important factor in promoting healthy behaviours (Nyman et al., 2017). This social
support from carer and/or significant person has been associated with improvements on
physical activity levels among community-dwelling older people (Böhm, Mielke, Da
Cruz, Viana Ramires, & Wehrmeister, 2016), which contributes to lower dropout rates
that are not uncommon in programmes for this audience. Recent studies (Nyman et al.,
2017; van Alphen et al., 2016; van der Wardt et al., 2017, 2019) identified barriers (e.g.,
memory problems, health problems, feelings of disability, tiredness) and
motivators/facilitators (e.g., physical benefits, staying active, maintain physical and
mental health, programme tailored to individual needs) for the involvement of PwD in
physical activity. Including physical activity in daily life routine, and personalise
interventions according each person capacity and interests are factors that motivate
adherence to physical activity in PwD (van der Wardt et al., 2019). The promotion of
home-based physical activity programmes seems to be an opportunity to offer a
personalised intervention to maintain the independence and delay the need for
institutionalisation of this population (Stubbs et al., 2014; World Health Organization,
2010, 2012). Physical activity programmes at home have been shown to increase physical
capacity, functionality, flexibility (Steinberg, Leoutsakos, Podewils, & Bayview, 2009;
Teri et al., 2003), aerobic endurance, muscle strength and balance (Vreugdenhil, Cannell,
Davies, & Razay, 2012a). In addition to physical improvements, physical activity at
home seems safe and effective to slow the decline in cognitive, function, as well as
helping to improve behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (S. I. L. de
Almeida, Gomes da Silva, & Marques, 2019; de Souto Barreto, Demougeot, Pillard,
Lapeyre-Mestre, & Rolland, 2015).
The Lifestyle Integrated Functional Exercise (LIFE), is a home-based physical
activity programme for older people that incorporates lower limb strength and balance
3
training into daily routines (Clemson et al., 2012). LIFE has shown to reduce disability
and prevent falls in older people with low dropout rates and high adherence (Clemson et
al., 2012). After showing these promising results by incorporating physical activity into
the daily routine several times a day, LIFE was adapted for PwD, the Lifestyle Integrated
Functional Exercise for People with Dementia (LiFE4D) (S. Almeida, Marques, & Silva,
2019). The LiFE4D is an individualised programme, with a 3-month duration and a face-
to-face progressive decrease contact with the health professional, that focus on exercise
capacity, flexibility and upper limb functionality (in addition to balance and lower limb
strength from the original LiFE) (S. Almeida, Gomes Da Silva, & Marques, 2020;
Clemson et al., 2012). It also includes an educational and psychosocial component, and
the involvement of carers and/or significant person (whenever possible) (S. Almeida et
al., 2020).
Although promising results on the physical health of PwD are known, their
opinions and the opinion of those caring for them are often neglected in research because
of perceived difficulties in consent, capacity of answer and difficulties on communication
(Brooks, Savitch, & Gridley, 2017). Involving people in research that is about them has
become an important principle in health research, it is their opinions that will make
interventions better and make them more person-centred (Brooks et al., 2017; Kontos et
al., 2018). By not including the voices of PwD, we may lack understanding and,
therefore, fail to deliver adequate care (Cohen, 1991). It is important to listen PwD and
their carers to identify methods that motivate and support them in their decision to
become more physically active (van Alphen et al., 2016). Thus, qualitative studies that
give voice to PwD are important to contribute to advances in this area. Thus, the aim of
this study was to explore the perceived barriers, motivators/facilitators and impacts of
participating in the LiFE4D programme according to the perspectives of PwD and their
informal carers.
4
2. Methods
2.1. Design and ethics
An exploratory, qualitative study was conducted. The qualitative approach was
chosen because data was collected from reality in a textual format, with meanings marked
by the subjective expression of participants (i.e., seeks to understand the reality lived by
individuals through their perceptions) (Creswell, 2007). Phenomenology with a deductive
approach was used as a theoretical framework for data collection and analysis (Creswell,
2007). This work follows the standards for reporting qualitative research (Alzheimer’s
Disease International, 2018) and the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research
(Alzheimer’s Disease International, 2018).
Ethical approval was originally obtained to the LiFE4D programme by the Ethics
Committee of the Health Sciences Research Unit – Coimbra Nursing School, and an
amendment was approved (n ° AD-P437-06 / 2017) for this additional study (annex I). The
confidentiality and anonymity of all data collected was ensured. It was explained to
participants that data would be kept in databases, password protected, with their names
coded and, that all personal identification (e.g., names) that could arise on interviews
would also be coded to ensure anonymity. It was also clarified that their participation was
voluntary and that they were free to withdraw or not answer questions at any time during
the interview. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants or legal
representatives (when applicable).
2.2. Recruitment of participants
A convenience sample was recruited from the LiFE4D study (PwD and their
informal carers/significant people [family member or friend], from now on referred to as
carers). The study sample was characterised as convenience, as it was made up of easily
accessible individuals who meet precise inclusion criteria (Fortin, 2006a). Inclusion criteria
were to have completed the participation in the LiFE4D programme and voluntary
accepted to participate. Exclusion criteria was being unable to respond to the interview
(e.g., aphasia). Potential participants were first contacted by the researcher who usually
contacted them during the LiFE4D programme, to explain the study. A meeting was
scheduled with participants who agreed to participate in this study, to further explain the
study, their voluntary participation and right to withdraw or not answer questions at any
5
time. All interviews were conducted at participants' homes by a researcher not involved in
the LiFE4D intervention, who had no previous contact with the participants. The
interviews were conducted between March and November 2019.
2.3. Data collection
Sociodemographic (e.g., PwD and carer: age and gender; carer: relationship with
the PwD and if living or not together), context of care (hours of basic/instrumental care,
number of people involved in care, and length of care) and clinical (e.g., PwD: number of
comorbidities) data were collected to characterise the sample with a structured
questionnaire. For the purpose of this study, basic care was defined as need of assistance
to feed, dress, bath and walk; and instrumental care was defined as need of assistance to
cook, clean, use transportation, do the laundry and manage finances (Katz, 1983).
The Addenbrooke´s Cognitive Examination III (ACE-III) was used to characterise
the cognitive function of the participants with dementia as it is a sensitive measure of the
early stages of dementia and has been showing high diagnostic accuracy compared to other
widely used cognitive measures (Matiás-Guiu et al., 2017). ACE-III distinguishes five
cognitive domains with a total score of 100 points (e.g., attention: 18 points, memory: 26
points, fluency: 14 points, language: 26 points, and visuospatial processing: 16 points),
with higher values indicating better cognitive performance (Noone, 2015). Cutoff points
were established to differentiate people without cognitive impairment and / or mild
cognitive impairment (82 points) and to discriminate people with dementia (74 points)
(Hsieh, Schubert, Hoon, Mioshi, & Hodges, 2013; Peixoto et al., 2018). ACE-III has been
shown to be a reliable measure (αCronbach=0.91), and a 74 points cut-off has been
established to screen PwD, validated to the Portuguese population (Peixoto et al., 2018).
Qualitative data were obtained with short semi-structured interviews to allow the
exploration and understanding of participants' experiences, opinions, feelings and
attitudes regarding factors that influence their participation in LiFE4D (Virginia Braun &
Victoria Clarke, 2006). This method is appropriate for exploring areas of interest for
people with poor collaboration skills rather than using closed/non-flexible questions
(Digby, Lee, & Williams, 2016). The researcher talked through the script of the interview
and re-worded, re-ordered or clarified any questions if needed. Participants and their
6
carers were encouraged to participate in the interview individually but the options of
being interviewed together or individually were offered.
The interviews were conducted with the help of 2 small portable audio recorders
(Olympus digital voice recorder ws 750m; Olympus VN3100PC digital voice recorder).
At the end of each interview, the researcher made notes about the interview that could be
useful for the interpretation of the data (e.g., environment and participants’ mood), as
recommended in qualitative research with people with poor collaboration skills (Braun &
Clarke, 2006; Hancox et al., 2019; Perfect et al., 2019). Two short semi-structured
interview guides were developed, one for PwD and another one for their carers’, based on
studies in PwD and cognitive decline (Fortin, 2006c, 2006b, 2006a; van Alphen et al.,
2016) (Table1).
Table 1. Semi-structured interview guides for the PwD and their carers´.
People with dementia Carers
1. What are your thoughts about the programme? 2. In your opinion, what were the barriers/difficulties of participating in the programme? 3. In your opinion, what were the facilitators/aspects that helped your participation? 4. Are you still doing the activities??
4.1 If yes, what motivates you to continue? 4.2 If no, why did you stop doing it?
5. What were the impacts or effects of the programme on you?
6. What were the impacts or effects of the programme on the person who is closest to you?
7. What would you change about the programme?
1. What are your thoughts about the programme? 2. In your opinion, what were the barriers/difficulties of participating in the programme? 3. In your opinion, what were the facilitators/aspects that helped your participation? 4. Does he/she continue to do physical activity alone/with help?
4.1 If yes, what motivates him/her to continue?
4.2 If not, why did he/she stop doing it? 5. What were the impacts or effects of the programme on you? 6. What were the impacts or effects of the programme on the person you care for?
7. What would you change about the programme?
2.4. Intervention
LiFE4D is an individualised home-based physical activity programme for PwD and
with the support/supervision of their carers, with the aim of involving PwD in physical
activities several times during the day, to further maintain/increase (or delay the decline of)
their independence in ADL (S. Almeida et al., 2020). LiFE4D was inspired by LiFE, a
home-based physical activity programme, which has shown positive results in adherence,
motivation and self-perception of health (e.g., decreased time in sedentary activity and the
number of falls) maintaining the independence of the older people in ADL (Clemson et al.,
2012). LiFE format encourages the establishment of new positive behaviours by
7
stimulating physical activity at home (S. Almeida et al., 2020; Clemson et al., 2012).
However, it does not include important health-related components of physical fitness (e.g.,
exercise capacity, muscle strength for the entire body and flexibility), carers support, its
design promotes the autonomy of the health professional, gradually decreasing their
presence throughout the programme and has never been explored in PwD (S. Almeida et
al., 2020). It also includes an educational and psychosocial component and encourages the
involvement of carers (i.e. across talks, flyers and practical issues related to the evolution
of the disease, impacts on the participant and their family and/or carers) to help them to
better manage the impacts of dementia (S. Almeida et al., 2020).
Therefore, LiFE4D was designed and implemented. LiFE4D programme lasted 12
weeks (Table 2) with face-to-face sessions (with progressive decrease in face-to-face
contact over time with the health professional, increasing the carers’ involvement in
physical activities) and phone calls (S. Almeida et al., 2020).
Table 2. LiFE4D design (per week)
Week 0 baseline assessment
Weeks 1–4 three face-to-face sessions/week
Weeks 5–8 two face-to-face sessions/week and a phone call every 2 weeks
Weeks 9–11 one face-to-face session/week and a phone call every 2 weeks
Week 12 post-assessment
Follow-ups 3 and 6 months after the end of the programme
The face-to-face sessions lasted approximately one hour, and telephone contacts
lasted a maximum of 15 minutes. The face-to-face sessions aimed to adapt physical
activity to everyday tasks, increase tasks frequency and intensity, monitor progress, clarify
doubts, motivate and manage expectations. The phone calls aimed to monitor
motivation/evolution and clarify doubts (S. Almeida et al., 2020, 2019). At the end of the
first month, each participant received a book with the physical activities that they might
continue to perform by themselves during their routines (S. Almeida et al., 2020, 2019).
The interviews of this study were conducted after the end of the programme during the
follow-up assessment period.
8
2.5. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample. The interviews were
recorded in audio, transcribed in full and later analysed by deductive thematic analysis
(Azungah, 2018; Green & Thorogood, 2004; Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke, 2006).
Deductive analysis is based on an analysis built on assumptions already defined, in the
expectation that certain central concepts are in the data (Azungah, 2018; Green &
Thorogood, 2004). So, it was chosen for this study, because the central themes for the
research had already been defined in the objective of the present study (barriers,
motivators/facilitators and impacts of the programme). The central themes were chosen,
based on the existing literature (Baert, Gorus, Mets, Geerts, & Bautmans, 2011; Farina et
al., 2020; Hobson, Dupuis, Giangregorio, & Middleton, 2020; Karssemeijer, de Klijn,
Bossers, Olde Rikkert, & van Heuvelen, 2020; van Alphen et al., 2016), the subthemes
were then coded and grouped to the central themes.
Thematic analysis is a method for identifying and reporting patterns in relation to a
specific scientific question through the experiences, meanings and reality perceived by the
participant (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the thematic analysis under the semantic approach,
the themes are identified in the explicit or superficial meanings of the data and the
researcher looks for nothing beyond what the participant said (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This
analytical process involves a progression of description, where data is organised to show
patterns in semantic content and then summarised for interpretation (Green & Thorogood,
2004; Virginia Braun & Victoria Clarke, 2006). In this process there is an attempt to
theorise patterns and their broader meanings/implications, usually in relation to the
previous literature (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Session annotations and audio recordings were
analysed using six phases (e.g., familiarisation with the data; generation of initial codes;
search for themes, review themes; define and name themes and producing the report) of the
thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006).
Data were transcribed in full from digital audio recordings and information that
could cause participant identification was removed or coded to preserve anonymity (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). Subsequently, the transcripts were read and reread for familiarisation
with the data, before the subthemes coding process began (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After
the initial coding of the subthemes, two researchers were involved in the interpretation of
the data on the subthemes found (Green & Thorogood, 2004). The two researchers read
9
and reread the sentences or sentences related to the areas of interest of the highlighted
study and classify them manually into subthemes. The initial subthemes of both
researchers were then compared, with differences eliminated by discussion and
consultation with the other authors. The interviews were then inserted into the Web
Qualitative Data Analysis (WebQDA). This software performs text, video, audio and
image analysis. The WebQDA was used to assist in the process of coding and data
management for analysis. Special attention was given to identifying positive and negative
subthemes in relation to each theme (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Green & Thorogood, 2004).
The subthemes were then refined and clustered into barriers, motivators/facilitators,
impacts of the programme, and other subthemes, separately for PwD and their carers.
Verbatim quotations were included to support the interpretation of the identified themes
and subthemes.
10
3. Results
3.1. Participants
From a total of 24 participants with dementia who engaged in the LiFE4D
programme, 2 did not accept to participate, 3 died, 4 were excluded (e.g., were not willing
to collaborate with this study due to aphasia). Thus, a total of 15 PwD were included in the
present study. From those who were included, one was a couple, and their carer was the
same, and 5 carers did not accept to participate. Thus, a total of 24 participants were
included in this study, 15 PwD (n=9, 60% female, 82 [75-84] years old, ACE-III total
score 50.4 [22-72] points) and 9 carers (n=7, 77.8% female, 72 [60-76] years old). Details
of the characteristics of the participants can be found in Table 3. Table 3. Characteristics of participants (n=24).
People with dementia (n=15) Carers (n=9)
Age (Years)
Sex ACE-III total score
(points)
No of comorbidities1
Age
(Years) Sex Relationship Living
together
John 82 Male 56 0 Kelly 76 Female Sister-in-law yes
Anne 73 Female 22 1 Beth 63 Female Sister yes
Emily 82 Female 33 1 Suzy 59 Female Daughter yes
Mariah 84 Female 31 4 NA NA NA NA NA
Anthony 75 Male 72 0 Jessy 72 Female Wife yes
Rose 81 Female 49 2 NA NA NA NA NA
Catherine 78 Female 38 1 Patrick 79 Male Husband yes
Jonathan 90 Male 69 3 Wilson 60 Male Son No Wendy 89 Female 48 1
Richard 75 Male 62 2 Evelyn 72 Female Wife yes
Caroline 84 Female 58 1 NA NA NA NA NA
Yolanda 85 Female 45 2 Martha 54 Female Daughter yes
Judith 91 Female 60 3 NA NA NA NA NA
Michael 81 Male 65 4 NA NA NA NA NA
Christian 79 Male 48 4 Clare 76 Female Wife yes
Total sample
n=15 Median [IQR]
82 [75-84]
Female 9 (60%)
50.4 [22-72] 2 [1-3]
n=9 72 [60-76]
Female 7
(77.8%)
Wife 3 (33.3%)
Yes 8 (88 %)
1 Cardiac condition, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, arthrosis, rheumatism, cholesterol and arteriosclerosis.
Abbreviations: ACE-III: Addenbrooke´s Cognitive Examination III; IQR: interquartile range; NA: not available.
11
Most PwD were interviewed separately (n=10), the two participants who shared the
same carer were interviewed separately and all carers were interviewed alone. Five PwD
asked to be interviewed in the presence of a carer because they felt more comfortable. The
median interview time with PwD was 6min04s (longest: 16min07s; shortest: 2min34s). For
carers the median interview time was 10min38s (longest: 25min45s; shortest:4min44s).
Six (66.7%) carers reported being 100% involved in basic and instrumental care of
PwD, with 5 (55.6%) having no help from any person and 3 (33.3%) having help from
only 1 person in the care provision. The median hours of basic care (i.e., bathing, dressing)
were 4 hours a day, and for instrumental (i.e., cleaning the house, shopping) care were also
4 hours a day. Regarding the length of care, the median was 3 years (minimum 2 and
maximum 5 years). More details on the care provided by carers can be found in Table 4. Table 4. Information on the context of care provided by the carers (n=9).
Basic care
(hours/day) Instrumental care
(hours/day) People involved
in care (no) Involvement in
care (%) Length of care
(years) Kelly 5 12 0 100 2
Beth 8 8 1 100 2
Suzy 4 4 0 100 3
Jessy 4 0 0 100 5
Patrick 3 1 1 80 5
Wilson 0 0 5 40 3
Evelyn 24 24 1 100 3
Martha 4 2 0 80 -
Clare 2:30 4 0 100 2 Total sample
n=9 Median [IQR]
4 [2.8-6.5] 4 [0.5-10] 0.5 [0-1] 100 [80-100] 3 [2-4.5]
Abbreviations: IQR: interquartile range.
3.2. Thematic analysis
A total of 44 subthemes were identified from interviews. Subthemes were divided
into 4 themes: barriers, motivators/facilitators, impact of the programme and other
subthemes. PwD identified 25 subthemes - 9 (36%) barriers; 10 (40%)
motivators/facilitators, 5 (20%) impacts of the programme and 1 (4%) other subthemes.
Carers identified 19 subthemes - 5 (26.3%) barriers; 6 (31.6%) motivators/facilitators, 4
(21%) impacts of the programme and 4 (21%) other subthemes.
3.2.1. Perspective of people with dementia
12
3.2.1.1. Barriers
PwD had more difficulties in naming the barriers than the motivators/facilitators, of
participating in the LiFE4D programme. Perceived barriers were related to their physical
and health limitations, not necessarily linked to the proposed physical activities of the
programme “I don't know, I don't think so, I have no difficulty in the programme (…) but I
have difficulty, because of knee pain” (Judith). The three most reported barriers by PwD
were “tiredness”, “memory problems” and “body pain”.
The identified barriers were mostly related to physical difficulties: “Walking is very
difficult; it hurts my knee. I also have a lot of pain in my arms and hands, they are always
shaking" (Judith). Tiredness was another barrier to the continuing of a physically active
lifestyle behaviour after LiFE4D: “a little, but I get tired and that’s it, I stay here [sitting
on the couch]” (Judith). The effect of these limitations together with some physical
problems sometimes lead to fear of performing certain physical activities.
The memory problems (i.e., difficulty in remembering the programme and/or the
instructor's name, or even their participation in the programme) were directly expressed by
the participant or observed during the interviews. Some participants, like Yolanda were
unable to remember the programme, saying “I don’t know (…) I don’t know what is and
what is not, no one told me” when asked about her participation and saying “I don’t know,
with [name of the professional]? Who is [name of the professional]?” when asked about
the physiotherapist who accompanied the face-to-face sessions. Some other participants
were unable to name/explain the activities, but they reproduced them with gestures (e.g.,
standing up) and showing the interviewer the physical activities that they enjoyed the most.
Another perceived barrier was the “lack of help to continue” which was mentioned
more than once, by participants who had no involvement of their carer during the research,
either due to not having a carer or even by the carer not wanting to answer the interview: "I
am alone, I have no one to accompany me in the activities" (Michael) and “What am I
going to do? I want to do some activity, but I don't know how (...) my son works all day"
(Rose)
3.2.1.2. Motivators/facilitators
PwD identified more motivators/facilitators than barriers of participating in the
LiFE4D programme. Conversely to barriers, motivators/facilitators drew the attention of
13
PwD, as they deal with perceived changes in their daily lives, and were, therefore, able to
answer to these questions more easily. The three motivators/facilitators most reported by
PwD were "professional support", "emotional well-being" and "easy exercises".
Motivators/facilitators were mainly related to perceived physical and mental health
benefits and the characteristics of the programme (e.g., easy implementation/adaptation of
the programme; the person-centred format, professional support, challenging and fun
activities).
Professional support and empathy with participants “I really like it, just because of
her face, very friendly” (Rosa), “She [heath professional] has always helped me and was
very patient with my difficulties” (Jonathan) and “I had no difficulties , she [health
professional] knew how to understand my difficulties and was always attentive to me”
(Richard), along with acceptance of her limitations and identification of her abilities “I am
here because I have the opportunity to better identify my difficulties and facilities” and
“what I know that some problems have been identified and some of them have been
overcome, and we only notice what kind of things when things really happen” (Anthony);
seem to facilitate and motivate the involvement of PwD in physical activity.
Some participants also stated that physical activities were easy to perform and that
the programme was adapted to them: "I don't have to adapt to the programme, everything
was simple without complications" (…) I liked it a lot, the activities to develop were the
most suitable for me” (Anthony). Perceived physical and mental benefits were also
reported by PwD, with one participant stating "It was the kind of thing we needed to feel
good" (Jonathan) and another reporting "I had no difficulty, I liked it a lot, I liked it a lot
(...) I had the feeling of feeling relaxed” (Judith).
It was also reported that the programme helped in the relationship between the PwD
and their carer, as LiFE4D allowed carer involvement during physical activity sessions and
the carers’ support was important for these people to continue carrying out the programme
"(...) my wife started doing it with us, she is always there watching the programme's
activities" (Christian). An opportunity to fight loneliness was also reported by some
participants. The programme was perceived as an awakening of new possibilities and they
saw in physical activity a way to fight against isolation, being able to do something for
themselves by becoming more active “Without a doubt I was [before LiFE4D] isolated”
(Anthony).
14
3.2.1.3. Impacts of the programme
The three most reported impacts of the programme, perceived by PwD were
continued to practice physical activity, physical well-being and overcoming personal
limits. The motivation, after realizing the improvements that physical activity brought to
their independence and well-being: “Going up and down stairs, for example, I was unable
to do it for a long time” (Anthony), coupled with the simplicity of replicating the exercises
at home: "I practically exercise every day, always walk, go to the bathroom and come
back, and try to do what I can" (Judith), lead to most participants to continue to perform
physical activities after the end of the LiFE4D intervention.
The opportunity to be moving more through LiFE4D led to feelings of physical well-
being and overcoming personal limits, such as starting a physical activity after the age of
eighty "(...) I didn't do activities. I only started when she (the instructor) came here"
(Michael) and maintaining independence in the ADLs “Getting up alone I couldn’t do it,
now (…) I wasn’t able to do it” (Anthony).
LiFE4D also provided benefits for participants' emotional health as they were able to
do to do something for themselves and their carer, as reported by Christian “It [LiFE4D]
had an impact for the better in both my life and my wife's”, leading to new possibilities,
feelings of inclusion and belonging to the environment around them.
3.2.1.4. Other subthemes
The subtheme "complement to other physical activities", was found as reported by
Christian who at the time of the follow up assessment attended an institution that offered
physical activity in group "It had an impact for the better, because in the institution where
I participate, they don't do gymnastics like that. The ones we do here [LiFE4D] are more
difficult and the interventions complement each other" (Christian).
3.2.2. Perspective of carers
3.2.2.1. Barriers Similarly to PwD, carers identified fewer barriers than motivators/facilitators when
participating in LiFE4D. The three most reported barriers were tiredness, carer conflicts
and reduced contact over time. Tiredness was the most reported barrier, accompanied by
the feeling of guilt for being unable to dedicate themselves as much to care as they would
like, as reported by Evelyn “He does little exercises, when the instructor came here, he did
15
little exercises with his legs and arms, but it is tiring for me to continue the exercises” and
Suzy, who besides the fatigue also reported the lack of time to carry out the programme "I
can say that the programme could have been more productive if there was really more
availability of my part to continue the exercises, but I am not with her (person with
dementia) during the day”.
Another identified barrier was carer conflicts, specifically related to communication
difficulties, changes in mood and behaviour of PwD: “He does not do activities with me,
he is upset, doesn't listen to me, he gets tired very fast (...) when the instructor is here, he
finds it funny and doesn't complain” and Beth “She is very lazy, she does not collaborate
much, she is lazy and stubborn (...) she did not like physical exercises, and she was upset”.
Reduced contact over time was also reported as a barrier. LiFE4D included three
face-to-face physical activity sessions in the first four weeks and then there was a
progressive decrease in this contact until the end of the programme at twelfth week. The
progressive decrease of the face-to-face contact with the health professional turned out to
be a barrier, as the changes perceived in the first month were very significant for carers "It
was great, it is a pity that the 3 months of the programme were not three days a week "(...)
the first month was great, there were many improvements" (Jessy) and “They (my parents)
did different things, they thought it was funny, they did a very big competition. It was
funny, the pity is that it started to be once a week and then it got more spaced” (Wilson).
3.2.2.2. Motivators/facilitators
The three motivators/facilitators most reported by carers were professional support,
the setting and the social contact. The professional support and empathy established
between the professional and the PwD and their carers were highly valued in the
interviews. A good example of this emotional component is reported by Patrick: “the girl
[health professional] arrived and it was very different, it was like putting gasoline on the
fire, it burned fast. She achieved with her in 15 days what other people have not achieved
in 2 years. There is no doubt about it. It also has a lot to do with people's ability to
empathise. It has a lot to do with it, no doubt the instructor was what she needed” and
Wilson “The physiotherapist has a sensitivity and a way to do this [the programme] (...) it
is very difficult to empathise with her [my mother] but she did it”.
The setting and simplicity of performing the exercises were also important
motivators for carers, since the PwD did not need to leave the house for having a
16
professional who adapted physical activities: “I think that the programme at home is better
than walking with her to other places (...) she [the wife] gets tired and doesn't like to leave
the house” (Patrick).
Social contact obtained from LiFE4D was also perceived as important by carers
“They (my parents) were always anxious for her (instructor) to arrive. My mother said that
she liked to do that, she thought it was fun” (Wilson). Indirect improvement in social
contact was also obtained since physical and mental well-being improved and therefore,
allowed PwD to make their social contacts easier, with less restrictions.
Another motivator/facilitator reported in the interviews was the opportunity to learn
more about dementia and information about care and health “we know little or nothing
about this type of problem, they explained to us, whether in conversation (...) or in writing,
they left information here” (Beth); “I stimulate him a lot because I am afraid. I am afraid.
I know that when a person loses the ability to walk it is the beginning [of dependence]”
(Kely).
3.2.2.3. Impacts of the programme
Carers reported on the impacts that the programme had on various aspects, both in
the lives of their loved ones and in their own lives. The three most reported impacts by
carers were physical benefits, emotional support/impact on loved ones and improvements
on ADL.
Regarding to their loved ones, the main aspect mentioned by carers was the
improvement of mobility and increased independence, especially when the sessions were
held three times/week: “I think that in the motor aspect while the exercise was practiced,
with that weekly regularity, it improved” (Suzy). The impacts during the first month were
also perceived to improve other important domains “At that time, three times a week, my
mother clearly noticed big differences from one day to the next, and even in the reports the
instructor did, even in terms of behaviour and attitude, because my mother was very
closed” (Wilson).
The emotional support, clarifications about dementia, care and attention received
from health professionals were most valued by both, carers (i.e., Patrick: “I think she has
become more active, more sober, has a different look, as she had before”) and PwD (i.e.,
Beth: “These things motivate us a little bit”).
17
Improvements on ADL were also perceived by carers. Important improvements in
performing and/or recovery of movements, in activities such as walking, eating, brushing
teeth, getting out of bed and dressing were evidenced in the interviews “I will be very
sincere, the programme changed my husband a lot, he did not walk ... now he walks and
can eat alone” (Clare).
3.2.2.4. Other subthemes
Most reported subthemes by carers were carer burden and gratitude. Carers
expressed a feeling of gratitude to the programme and professionals involved, and showed
a desire to continue with it, as they felt changes in themselves and in their loved ones.
Another subtheme that emerged from the interviews was the replication of LiFE4D on
other settings (i.e., nursing homes and day care centres), one carer argue that LiFE4D “in a
space like this (nursing home) that [programme] would happen once or twice a week, or
also transmit the people who work in these entities the work that you are doing, which
should be more publicised because it is very interesting, because I think it was extremely
interesting. I really liked it” (Wilson).
Improvements on mobility and increased independence, especially in basic ADL,
helped the burden of care become lighter and easier “my husband has changed a lot (…)
the programme changed my husband a lot, now he brushes his teeth and combs his hair"
(Clare). More details on the themes can be found in Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 5. Barriers, motivators/facilitators and impacts of participating in the LiFE4D programme according to people with dementia (n=15).
Themes identified by participants with dementia
Number of participants Representative quotes
Barriers
Tiredness 6 "It's not like it used to be (...) now when I walk, I already feel breathless" (Rose)
Memory problems 6 “Everything can be good, but I don't remember anything, I don't remember any of that” (Yolanda)
Body pain 3 "I walk with a lot of difficulties, my kidney hurts, my hip hurts" (Rose)
Physical problems 2 "The vision and hearing problems disturbs me a lot" (Anthony)
Lack of help to continue 2 "(..) sometimes I want to move, but I don't know how, it is difficult alone" (Rose)
18
Lack of time 1 “I have no time” (Judith)
Fear 1 “I am also afraid of these things (physical activity)” (Emily)
Difficult to restart physical activity even with short breaks 1
“I notice this especially when I don't practice the exercises. At weekends, for example, when I decrease activities, I notice that something was missing” (Anthony)
Lack of outreach 1 “I think there was little visibility for the programme, little publicity (…) some tv advertisement, or flyers on the road (…)” (Richard)
Motivators/facilitators
Professional support 6 "The instructor did a good job, and I can consider it very good" (Jonathan)
Emotional well-being 5 “I found that (programme) very fun” (Jonathan)
Easy exercises 4 I had no difficulties, nothing was complicated" (Jonathan)
Easy to adapt 3 "What I see, and highlight is that there is no difficulty, the programme is easy to access and has quality" (Richard)
New challenges 2 “The gym at the institution is very different from the (LiFE4D) programme (…) LiFE4D is more challenges than the programme at the institution” (Christian)
Person-centred approach 2 "(…) doctor's receptivity to hear my difficulties made me feel free to expose myself without fear" (Richard)
Physical benefits 2 “I liked it a lot, because I had the impression that I stretched my tendons, left me relaxed, because they were all trapped" (Judith)
Carer involvement 2 "(...) my wife started doing it with us, she is always there watching the programme's activities" (Christian)
Fighting loneliness 2 “Without a doubt I was [before LiFE4D] isolated” (Anthony)
Find how to be physically active 1 “I wouldn’t change a thing, (…) because I like to be active, but sometimes I want to be active, but I don’t know how (before the programme)” (Rose)
Impacts of the programme
Continued to practice physical activity 7 "I practically walk every day and almost every day I do the
exercises with my hands and feet" (Richard)
Physical well-being 3 "(...) I liked it a lot, I liked it because I had the impression that I stretched my tendons and relaxed" (Judith)
Overcoming personal limits 3 “Going up and down stairs, for example, I wasn’t able to do it for a long time. Without a doubt, we improve and only after we perceive the real benefits" (Anthony)
Started to practice physical activity for the first time ever 1 "(...) I didn't do activities. I only started when she (the
instructor) came here" (Michael)
Positive impact on carer 1 “It [LiFE4D] had an impact for the better in both my life and my wife's” (Christian)
Other subthemes
Complement to other physical activities 1
"It had an impact for the better, because in the institution where I participate, they don't do gymnastics like that. The ones we do here are more difficult and the situation is better completed" (Christian)
19
Table 6. Barriers, motivators/facilitators and impacts of participating in the LiFE4D programme according to carers perspective (n=9).
Themes identified by carer and/or significant person
Number of participants Representative quotes
Barriers
Tiredness 3 “He does little exercises, when the instructor came here, he did little exercises with his legs and arms, but it is tiring for me to continue the exercises” (Evelyn)
Carer conflicts 2 “If he goes with the instructor, he does the exercises. When he
is with me, he says he is tired and does not do it” (Clare)
Decreased contact over time 2
They (my parents) did different things, they thought it was funny, they did a very big competition. It was funny, the pity is that it started to be once a week and then it got more spaced” (Wilson)
Mood and behaviour changes 1 "She is very lazy, she does not collaborate much, she is lazy and stubborn (...) she did not like physical exercises, and she was upset" (Beth)
Lack of time 1
"I can say that the programme could have been more productive if there was really more availability on my part to continue the exercises, but I am not with her (person with dementia) during the day" (Suzy)
Motivators/facilitators
Professional support 4 “The instructor has a sensitivity and empathy, she (instructor) did a fantastic job with great care and attention to my wife's needs" (Patrick)
Setting 2 “It is evident that the home programme is better, for the patient it is better” (Patrick)
Social contact 2 “They (my parents) were always anxious for her (instructor) to arrive. My mother said that she liked to do that, she thought it was fun” (Wilson)
Opportunities to learn 2
“The instructors explained the difference between senility and Alzheimer's (...) and I already wanted to know a little more. For two or three times the instructor brought written information" (Kely)
Easy exercises 1 “The exercises they did at home were very simple and easy to do" (Wilson)
Fear of dependence 1 “I stimulate him a lot because I am afraid. I am afraid. I know that when a person loses the ability to walk it is the beginning [of dependence]” (Kely)
Impacts of the programme
Physical benefits on loved ones 8 “Physiotherapy was good. It improved some aspects of my mother; she walks more easily” (Martha)
Emotional impacts on loved ones 5
“I used to say, Catherine was resurrected, emotionally resurrected. I think she became more active, more sober, has a different look than before, already answers a lot and also asks some questions” (Patrick)
Improvements on activities of daily living 2 “I will be very sincere, the programme changed my husband a
lot, he did not walk ... now he walks and can eat alone” (Clare)
Emotional support 1
“The instructors gave us a lot of strength and support when talking to us, any of the two who came here were good, spectacular (...) it was good because we were very discouraged” (Beth)
20
Other subthemes
Carer burden 3 "I'm 76 years old, and taking care of someone with dementia, is difficult. I was exhausted” (Clare)
Gratitude 2 “That’s why I say, stay as you are, don’t change, keep doing it, it is very well, you helped us a lot” (Patrick)
Transferability to other settings 1 “This should be a programme applied everywhere, like here (nursing homes), in the physical point of view, there are no exercises, like getting up from the chair” (Wilson)
Difficulties understanding questionnaires 1
“I didn’t have difficulty, only in some questions when they came at the beginning with the questionnaires” (Evelyn)
3.3. Contextual notes
After the interviews, contextual notes were made to assist in the coding and
identification of the subthemes. Due to the cognitive impairment of some participants, only
the audio, without notes, would not be enough to give the dimension of the entire context
of the interview. Humour, interview context and non-verbal behaviour were noted. Three
notes were common and frequent among the interviews with PwD: changes in mood
during the interview (agitation peaks), memory difficulties (naming people and activities)
and use of body language and facial expressions (especially when PwD could not
remember names and activities, they reproduced them with gestures).
21
4. Discussion
This study identified barriers, motivators/facilitators and impacts of the LiFE4D
intervention in the perspective of those who participated, i.e., PwD and their carers’. Our
findings showed that: 1) participants perceived more motivators/facilitators (10 in PwD
and 6 in carers) than barriers (9 in PwD and 5 in carers) to participate in LiFE4D; 2) there
were common perceived motivators/facilitators: easy exercises and professional support;
and barriers: tiredness and lack of time between PwD and their carers; 3) only positive
impacts of participating in LiFE4D were perceived by PwD and their carers.
Participants had an overall positive perspective of participating in the LiFE4D.
Strategies used to minimise the already known possible barriers when engaging PwD and
their carers in physical activity programmes might explain this positive perspective.
Firstly, the LiFE4D programme was designed based on the literature (Clemson et al.,
2012) and characteristics such as session format; individualised physical exercises; carer
involvement (whenever possible); consideration of individual needs (PwD and carer) and
home context were considered in the design of the programme. The adapted exercises
(easy to perform), home format and professional support were reported by participants as
important and essential motivators for the adherence and conclusion of the programme,
characteristics already pointed out in the literature as effective in motivating older people
with or without dementia to adhere to physical activity programmes (Baert et al., 2011;
Farina et al., 2020; Hancox et al., 2019; Hobson et al., 2020; Karssemeijer, De Klijn,
Bossers, Olde Rikkert, & Van Heuvelen, 2018; Suttanon, Hill, Said, Byrne, & Dodd, 2012;
van Alphen et al., 2016; van der Wardt et al., 2017). In other words, barriers such as travel
difficulties and/or access to infrastructure (Baert et al., 2011; Hobson et al., 2020),
adaptation of physical activity (individual exercises) (van Alphen et al., 2016) and support
from carers and/or health professionals (Nyman, 2019; Nyman et al., 2017; van Alphen et
al., 2016; van Stralen, de Vries, Mudde, Bolman, & Lechner, 2009) were therefore
eliminated, facilitating the involvement of participants in the LiFE4D programme.
Both groups reported “tiredness” and “lack of time” as barriers and “easy exercises”
and “professional support” as motivators/facilitators , similar subthemes previously
identified in the literature (Baert et al., 2011; Farina et al., 2020; Karssemeijer et al., 2018;
van Alphen et al., 2016). The simplicity of performing the proposed exercises was a key
22
motivator to PwD as they felt capable of carrying out the programme, the exercises were
attractive, challenging and fun. From the perspective of carers, the simplicity of carrying
out the exercises helped them to continue the programme when the health professional was
not present. PwD also emphasised the empathy, patience, attention and care of the person
accompanying them in the activities as essential for their participation in the programme
as, they felt safer to perform the exercises. The importance of the support received,
whether from a professional or a carer, to maintain a more active behaviour in older people
and PwD has been acknowledged previously (Baert et al., 2011; Nyman et al., 2017; van
Stralen et al., 2009). Carers valued especially the "professional support" since they
perceived that specialised care, tailored to their loved ones had been provided and
simultaneously provided them with the opportunity of having a moment of rest and/or to
resolve other issues while the professional conducted the sessions.
Important barriers were however identified in this study. PwD identified barriers
related to physical, cognitive and support difficulties. Physical difficulties (e.g., body
aches, tiredness, vision and hearing problems) apply not only to PwD, but also to older
elderly people with or without cognitive impairment, are characteristic of the aging process
where the progressive deterioration of the body's physiological function, results in
decreased health (López-Otín, Blasco, Partridge, Serrano, & Kroemer, 2013; Mori, 2020),
thus, and are not necessarily related to the participation in a physical activity programme
(Hobson et al., 2020; Kim, Ullrich-French, Bolkan, & Hill, 2018).
Symptoms of dementia (e.g., memory problems, apathy, changes in mood and
behaviour) (American Psychiatric Association, 2014), may justify the cognitive barriers
expressed for example in the difficulty of remembering the actions to perform the exercises
even after having already performed them repeatedly (Farina et al., 2020; Hancox et al.,
2019; Hobson et al., 2020; van der Wardt et al., 2019). Thus, support, i.e., presence of the
carer (and/or health professional) was perceived as fundamental to continue the
maintenance of an active behaviour, which is not always possible due to the difficulties
encountered with the progression of the symptoms of dementia, or even due to the absence
of a carer or health professional.
Support difficulties are related to the lack of support to continue activities when the
health professional is not present. This difficulty is justified by carers when reporting the
"carer conflict" barrier. According to the carers, carer conflict made it difficult to provide
23
support in the execution of physical activities when the health professional was not present.
The main difficulties reported were due to changes in behaviour (e.g., agitation and apathy)
and humour; and communication difficulties (David et al., 2012; Van Alphen et al., 2016).
Which leads to the need for more studies that can identify ways to adjust the need for
support of PwD in the practice of physical activities, with the carers difficulty in offering
this support, whether at an instrumental level (execution of activities, more efficient and
assertive communication) as emotional (use of coping strategies).
Moreover, “tiredness and lack of time”, which are aspects known to add challenges
to the maintenance of physical activity in the daily life of PwD were also barriers reported
by carers (Baert et al., 2011; Farina et al., 2020; Gobbi et al., 2012). An important note
about the “tiredness” of carers in the present study was their age, the average was 72 years
old among carers and 82 years old among PwD. Carers were older people caring for older
people with dementia. The accumulation of activities divided between basic and
instrumental care, added to the difficulties inherent in aging increased the burden felt by
carers (Baert et al., 2011; Nyman, 2019; van Alphen et al., 2016).
Despite all challenges, it was evident that the programme had a major positive
impact on participants' lives, both in physical and health aspects as well as emotional one.
Physical well-being was an impact perceived by both groups, in PwD in the subtheme
"physical well-being" and in carers in "physical benefits for the loved one" (Baert et al.,
2011). This suggests that emphasizing the benefits to physical well-being and health can be
an important element for adhering to physical activity programmes (Karssemeijer et al.,
2018). Namely, in this study in particular, the physical impact was perceived in the
functional improvement of PwD (Dawson, Judge, & Gerhart, 2010; Gonçalves, Marques,
Samuel, & Demain, 2019; Vreugdenhil, Cannell, Davies, & Razay, 2012b), where the
increase in independence in ADL (e.g., eating, dressing, walking and getting out of bed)
had a direct impact on relieving the overload of carers (Gonçalves, Samuel, Ramsay,
Demain, & Marques, 2020), reported by both groups. Another important factor that
favoured the positive impact of the programme was the format. The person-centred
approach, followed by LiFE4D, has been shown to increase the level of activities in PwD
(Baert et al., 2011; Karssemeijer et al., 2018). Participation in an individualised
programme made the experience more attractive; the focus on the difficulties of each
participant contributed to the positive physical impacts being significant.
24
Emotional support was also mentioned in both groups, described by the participants
as: feeling of well-being; acceptance of difficulties; overcoming limits and clarifying
doubts. This support helped participants to continue the programme. Upon receiving
emotional support, the PwD felt more capable (physically and mentally) to carry out the
programme, it also aroused the feeling of overcoming difficulties; emotional well-being
when doing something for health (Karssemeijer et al., 2018) and encouragement in the
fight against loneliness (Gonçalves et al., 2020). The carers, in turn, reported this support
in the reception received by the health professional, felt more relieved to have someone to
share their emotional difficulties in dealing with the evolution of dementia, as well as in
clarifying their doubts and concerns regarding the care provided to loved ones (Gonçalves
et al., 2019). Giving voice to PwD and their carers was important, as it aroused the feeling
of inclusion and belonging to the programme (Brooks et al., 2017).
Finally, although there are some subthemes in common, barriers,
motivators/facilitators and impacts were found to differ between PwD and their carers.
Understanding the dynamics between PwD and their carer and thinking about strategies to
help to reduce barriers can make physical activity more attractive and increase adherence
(Farina et al., 2020; Woodbridge et al., 2018). That is why more studies are needed
involving PwD and their carers to better understand their family dynamics (e.g., to
introduce meaningful and realistic strategies in their routines) and their perceptions about
physical activity, and later explore this in the development and improvement of physical
activity programmes aimed at this population.
The present study has some limitations that need to be recognised. First, only PwD
who voluntarily participated and completed the LiFE4D programme were included in this
study. PwD and their carers reported only positive impacts about LiFE4D participation,
which might have been influenced by the social desirability. The perception of those who
refused to participate, and their carers may be different, namely regarding the obstacles to
complete the programme. This limits the generalisability of the findings of the present
study. In addition, people with aphasia and without the ability to consent were excluded. It
is likely that their perceptions are different from those included in this study. Identifying
reasons, in the perspectives of PwD and their carers, that can lead to abandonment and/or
refusal to participate in a home-based physical activity programme and including people
with aphasia and people unable to consent, would be of added value to design future and
25
meaningful interventions. Secondly, five PwD were accompanied by their carers in the
interviews, which may have inhibited them from giving the answers that expressed their
opinion not to upset their relative. Nevertheless, the presence of the carer was requested by
the PwD and therefore, their wish was respected. Thirdly, social and economic factors
were not explored in this study and may constitute barriers or motivators to be further
explored.
26
5. Conclusion
This study highlights motivators/facilitators, barriers and impacts of the LiFE4D
programme on people with dementia and their family carers. Participants perceived more
motivators/facilitators than barriers of participating in LiFE4D. The individualized person-
centred approach, and the carers involvement facilitated adherence to the programme.
Features such as home format, simple and easy exercises to perform, and which fit into the
daily routine, combined with the professional support received were highlighted in this
study as motivators/facilitators for both participants. Difficulties such as tiredness, physical
health problems and lack of time were seen as main barriers. Only positive impacts of
participation in LiFE4D were perceived by PwD and their carers. Although there are some
subthemes in common, there were motivators/facilitators, barriers and impacts that differed
between PwD and their carers. Such differences must be explored in order to improve
physical activity interventions directed at this audience.
27
References
Almeida, S. I. L. de, Gomes da Silva, M., & Marques, A. S. P. de D. (2019). Home-Based Physical Activity Programs for People With Dementia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Gerontologist, XX(Xx), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz176
Almeida, S., Gomes Da Silva, M., & Marques, A. (2020). Lifestyle integrated functional exercise for people with dementia: Study protocol for a home-based randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2019.0066
Almeida, S., Marques, A., & Silva, M. (2019). LiFE4D : Manual de Apoio para a Atividade Física em Pessoas com Défice Cognitivo Ligeiro ou com Demência (1a edição). Retrieved from https://ria.ua.pt/bitstream/10773/26390/1/Manual LiFE4D.pdf
Alzheimer’s Disease International. (2018). Alzheimer’s Disease International. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610297004146
American Psychiatric Association. (2014). Manual de Diagnóstico e Estatístico de Transtornos Mentais (5a edição; Artmed, ed.). Porto Alegre.
Azungah, T. (2018). Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
Baert, V., Gorus, E., Mets, T., Geerts, C., & Bautmans, I. (2011). Motivators and barriers for physical activity in the oldest old: A systematic review. Ageing Research Reviews, 10(4), 464–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2011.04.001
Böhm, A. W., Mielke, G. I., Da Cruz, M. F., Viana Ramires, V., & Wehrmeister, F. C. (2016). Social support and leisure-time physical activity among the elderly: A population-based study. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 13(6), 599–605. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2015-0277
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. In Qualitative Research in Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 77–101).
Brooks, J., Savitch, N., & Gridley, K. (2017). Removing the ’gag’ : Involving people with dementia in research as advisers and participants. Social Research Practice, Winter 201(3), 3–14. Retrieved from http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/social-research-practice-journal-issue-03-winter-2017.pdf
Cerga-Pashoja, A., Warner, J., Griffin, M., Knapp, M., Rehill, A., Iliffe, S., … Lowery, D. (2015). Cost-effectiveness of exercise as a therapy for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia within the EVIDEM-E randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 31(6), 656–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4376
Clemson, L., Fiatarone Singh, M. A., Bundy, A., Cumming, R. G., Manollaras, K., O’Loughlin, P., & Black, D. (2012). Integration of balance and strength training into daily life activity to reduce rate of falls in older people (the LiFE study): Randomised
28
parallel trial. BMJ (Online), 345(7870), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4547
Cohen, D. (1991). The subjective experience of Alzheimer’s disease: The anatomy of an illness as perceived by patients and families. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 6(3), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/153331759100600303
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. In Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
David, R., Mulin, E., Friedman, L., Le Duff, F., Cygankiewicz, E., Deschaux, O., … Zeitzer, J. M. (2012). Decreased daytime motor activity associated with apathy in Alzheimer disease: An actigraphic study. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20(9), 806–814. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e31823038af
Dawson, N., Judge, K. S., & Gerhart, H. (2010). Improved Functional Performance in Individuals with Dementia after a Moderate-Intensity Home-Based Exercise Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 42(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000128
de Souto Barreto, P., Demougeot, L., Pillard, F., Lapeyre-Mestre, M., & Rolland, Y. (2015). Exercise training for managing behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 24, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.09.001
DGS. (2016). Programa nacional para saúde mental em números – 2015. Direção Geral Da Saúde, (2183–1505), 1–116. Retrieved from https://www.dgs.pt/em-destaque/portugal-saude-mental-em-numeros-201511.aspx
Digby, R., Lee, S., & Williams, A. (2016). Interviewing people with dementia in hospital: Recommendations for researchers. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25(7–8), 1156–1165. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13141
Farina, N., Williams, A., Clarke, K., Hughes, L. J., Thomas, S., Lowry, R. G., & Banerjee, S. (2020). Barriers, motivators and facilitators of physical activity in people with dementia and their family carers in England: dyadic interviews. Aging and Mental Health, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1727852
Forbes, D., Forbes, S., Blake, C., Thiessen, E., & Forbes, S. (2015). Exercise programs for people with dementia ( Review ) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ., (4). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006489.pub4.www.cochranelibrary.com
Fortin, M. F. (2006a). Capítulo 14 - A amostragem. In Fundamentos e Etapas do Processo de Investigação (pp. 309–334).
Fortin, M. F. (2006b). Capítulo 16 - Os métodos de colheita de dados. In Fundamentos e Etapas do Processo de Investigação (pp. 367–406).
Fortin, M. F. (2006c). Capítulo 2 - As abordagens quantitativa e qualitativa. In
29
Fundamentos e Etapas do Processo de Investigação (pp. 25–46).
Gobbi, S., Sebastião, E., Papini, C. B., Nakamura, P. M., Valdanha Netto, A., Gobbi, L. T. B., & Kokubun, E. (2012). Physical inactivity and related barriers: A study in a community dwelling of older brazilians. Journal of Aging Research, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/685190
Gonçalves, A. C., Marques, A., Samuel, D., & Demain, S. (2019). Outcomes of physical activity for people living with dementia: qualitative study to inform a Core Outcome Set. Physiotherapy (United Kingdom), 108, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2019.05.003
Gonçalves, A. C., Samuel, D., Ramsay, M., Demain, S., & Marques, A. (2020). A core outcome set to evaluate physical activity interventions for people living with dementia. Gerontologist, 60(4), 682–692. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnz100
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2004). Qualitative Methods for Health Research. In Sage Publication Ltd. London.
Hancox, J. E., Van Der Wardt, V., Pollock, K., Booth, V., Vedhara, K., & Harwood, R. H. (2019). Factors influencing adherence to home-based strength and balance exercises among older adults with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia: Promoting activity, independence and stability in early dementia (praised). PLoS ONE, 14(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217387
Harrison, K. L., Ritchie, C. S., Patel, K., Hunt, L. J., Covinsky, K. E., Yaffe, K., & Smith, A. K. (2019). Care Settings and Clinical Characteristics of Older Adults with Moderately Severe Dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67(9), 1907–1912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16054
Hernández, S. S. S., Sandreschi, P. F., Da Silva, F. C., Arancibia, B. A. V., Da Silva, R., Gutierres, P. J. B., & Andrade, A. (2015). What are the benefits of exercise for Alzheimer’s disease? A systematic review of the past 10 years. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 23(4), 659–668. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2014-0180
Hobson, N., Dupuis, S. L., Giangregorio, L. M., & Middleton, L. E. (2020). Perceived facilitators and barriers to exercise among older adults with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 28(2), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1123/JAPA.2019-0010
Hsieh, S., Schubert, S., Hoon, C., Mioshi, E., & Hodges, J. R. (2013). Validation of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III in Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 36(3–4), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1159/000351671
Karssemeijer, E. G. A., de Klijn, F. H., Bossers, W. J. R., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., & van Heuvelen, M. J. G. (2020). Ranking Barriers, Motivators, and Facilitators to Promote Physical Activity Participation of Persons With Dementia. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 43(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000210
Karssemeijer, E. G. A., De Klijn, F. H., Bossers, W. J. R., Olde Rikkert, M. G. M., & Van
30
Heuvelen, M. J. G. (2018). Ranking Barriers, Motivators, and Facilitators to Promote Physical Activity Participation of Persons with Dementia: An Explorative Study. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 43(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000210
Katz, S. (1983). Assessing self-maintenance: Activities of daily living, mobility, and instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 31(12), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1983.tb03391.x
Kim, E., Ullrich-French, S., Bolkan, C., & Hill, L. G. (2018). The Role of Caregivers in Physical Activity for Older Adults With Alzheimer’s Disease. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias, 33(2), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317517740664
Kontos, P., Grigorovich, A., Dupuis, S., Jonas-Simpson, C., Mitchell, G., & Gray, J. (2018). Raising the curtain on stigma associated with dementia: fostering a new cultural imaginary for a more inclusive society. Critical Public Health, 00(00), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2018.1508822
López-Otín, C., Blasco, M. A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M., & Kroemer, G. (2013). The hallmarks of aging. Cell, 153(6), 1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039
Maki, Y., Sakurai, T., Okochi, J., Yamaguchi, H., & Toba, K. (2018). Rehabilitation to live better with dementia. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 18(11), 1529–1536. https://doi.org/10.1111/ggi.13517
Matiás-Guiu, J. A., Valles-Salgado, M., Rognoni, T., Hamre-Gil, F., Moreno-Ramos, T., & Matiás-Guiu, J. (2017). Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of the ACE-III, MIS, MMSE, MoCA, and RUDAS for Screening of Alzheimer Disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 43(5–6), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1159/000469658
Mori, M. A. (2020). Aging: A new perspective on an old issue. Anais Da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 92(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202020200437
Noone, P. (2015). Addenbrooke’s cognitive examination-III. Occupational Medicine, 65(5), 418–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv041
Nyman, S. R. (2019). Which behavior change techniques are effective in promoting physical activity among older people with dementia? A call for research into three underexplored avenues. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 27(4), 441–445. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2018-0301
Nyman, S. R., Adamczewska, N., & Howlett, N. (2017). Systematic review of behaviour change techniques to promote participation in physical activity among people with dementia. British Journal of Health Psychology, 23(1), 148–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12279
OCDE. (2017). Health at a Glance 2017. https://doi.org/Please cite this publication as: OECD (2017), Health at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2017-en
31
Opdenacker, J., Boen, F., Coorevits, N., & Delecluse, C. (2008). Effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention and a structured exercise intervention in older adults. Preventive Medicine, 46(6), 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.02.017
Peixoto, B., Machado, M., Rocha, P., Macedo, C., Machado, A., Baeta, É., … Monteiro, L. (2018). Validation of the Portuguese version of Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination III in mild cognitive impairment and dementia. Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 27(6), 781–786. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/68975
Perfect, D., Griffiths, A. W., Vasconcelos Da Silva, M., Lemos Dekker, N., McDermid, J., & Surr, C. A. (2019). Collecting self-report research data with people with dementia within care home clinical trials: Benefits, challenges and best practice. Dementia, 147130121987116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301219871168
Pitkäl̈a, K. H., Pöysti, M. M., Laakkonen, M. L., Tilvis, R. S., Savikko, N., Kautiainen, H., & Strandberg, T. E. (2013). Effects of the Finnish Alzheimer Disease Exercise Trial (FINALEX): A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(10), 894–901. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.359
Prince, M., Albanese, E., Guerchet, M., & Prina, M. (2014). World Alzheimer Report 2014: Dementia and risk reduction: an analysis of protective and modifiable factors. Alzheimer’s Disease International, 1–104.
Souto Barreto, P., Demougeot, L., Pillard, F., Lapeyre-Mestre, M., & Rolland, Y. (2015). Exercise training for managing behavioral and psychological symptoms in people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 24, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2015.09.001
Steinberg, M., Leoutsakos, J. S., Podewils, L. J., & Bayview, H. (2009). Evaluation of a home-based exercise program in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: The Maximizing Independence in Dementia (MIND) study. Geriatriatric Psychiatry, 24(7), 680–685. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.2175.Evaluation
Stubbs, B., Eggermont, L., Soundy, A., Probst, M., Vandenbulcke, M., & Vancampfort, D. (2014). What are the factors associated with physical activity (PA) participation in community dwelling adults with dementia? A systematic review of PA correlates. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 59(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2014.06.006
Suttanon, P., Hill, K. D., Said, C. M., Byrne, K. N., & Dodd, K. J. (2012). Factors influencing commencement and adherence to a home-based balance exercise program for reducing risk of falls: Perceptions of people with Alzheimer’s disease and their caregivers. International Psychogeriatrics, 24(7), 1172–1182. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610211002729
Teri, L., Gibbons, L. E., Mccurry, S. M., Logsdon, R. G., Buchner, D. M., Barlow, W. E., … Larson, E. B. (2003). Exercise Plus Behavioral Management. Journal of American Medical Association, 290(15), 2015–2022.
van Alphen, H. J. M., Hortobágyi, T., & van Heuvelen, M. J. G. (2016). Barriers, motivators, and facilitators of physical activity in dementia patients: A systematic
32
review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 66, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2016.05.008
Van Alphen, H. J. M., Volkers, K. M., Blankevoort, C. G., Scherder, E. J. A., Hortobágyi, T., & Van Heuvelen, M. J. G. (2016). Older adults with dementia are sedentary for most of the day. PLoS ONE, 11(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152457
van der Wardt, V., Hancox, J., Gondek, D., Logan, P., Nair, R. das, Pollock, K., & Harwood, R. (2017). Adherence support strategies for exercise interventions in people with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine Reports, 7, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.05.007
van der Wardt, V., Hancox, J., Pollock, K., Logan, P., Vedhara, K., & Harwood, R. H. (2019). Physical activity engagement strategies in people with mild cognitive impairment or dementia–a focus group study. Aging and Mental Health, 0(0), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1590308
van Stralen, M. M., de Vries, H., Mudde, A. N., Bolman, C., & Lechner, L. (2009). Determinants of initiation and maintenance of physical activity among older adults: A literature review. Health Psychology Review, 3(2), 147–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437190903229462
Virginia Braun, & Victoria Clarke. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Vreugdenhil, A., Cannell, J., Davies, A., & Razay, G. (2012a). A community-based exercise programme to improve functional ability in people with Alzheimer’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00895.x
Vreugdenhil, A., Cannell, J., Davies, A., & Razay, G. (2012b). A community-based exercise programme to improve functional ability in people with Alzheimer’s disease: A randomized controlled trial. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 26(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00895.x
Woodbridge, R., Sullivan, M. P., Harding, E., Crutch, S., Gilhooly, K. J., Gilhooly, M. L. M., … Wilson, L. (2018). Use of the physical environment to support everyday activities for people with dementia: A systematic review. Dementia, 17(5), 533–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216648670
World Health Organization. (2010). Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health.
World Health Organization. (2012). a Public Health Priority. Dementia, 1–4. https://doi.org/ISBN 9789241564458
World Health Organization. (2017). Global action plan on the public health response to dementia 2017 - 2025. 1–27.
33
Annex I - Ethics approval
34
Appendix I - Participants information sheet
Código:_______
Protocolo de Recolha de Dados Dados de Identificação
(Informação a destacar do protocolo)
Data_____/_____/_________(dia/mês/ano)
Código:__________________
Nome___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Data de Nascimento ______/_______/___________ (dia/mês/ano)
Morada_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Telefone/Telemóvel__________________________/__________________________
E-mail________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________ Nome do Investigador(a)
_________ Data
___________________________ Assinatura
35
Appendix II - Interview guide carer
Código:_______
O LiFE4D está em implementação há um ano mas desconhece-se qual o seu impacto na perspetiva das pessoas que participaram nesta intervenção. Assim, esta entrevista tem como objetivo avaliar o programa na perspetiva dos participantes.
CUIDADOR INFORMAL/ PESSOA SIGNIFICATIVA
INFORMAÇÃO SOCIODEMOGRÁFICA
Descrição do Prestador de Cuidados Principal
C1. Idade ______ anos
C2. Sexo: 1.Masculino 2.Feminino
C3. Relação com o Doente:
1. Cônjuge 4.Amigo
2. Irmão/ã 5.Outro ____________
3. Filho
C4. Número de filhos atualmente a residirem consigo:_______ Filho(s)
C5. Há quanto tempo presta cuidado? ____________________
C6. Qual o tipo de cuidados que presta com maior frequência? __________________________
C7. Vive com o doente? 1. Sim 2. Não
C8. Quantos outros prestadores de cuidados estão envolvidos na assistência?
0 1 2 3 4 ou mais
C9. Entre todos os prestadores qual o seu nível de contribuição?
1. 1-20% 2. 21-40% 3. 41-60% 4. 61-80% 5. 81-100%
Entrevista pré intervenção do programa C10. Como teve conhecimento do programa? C11. Quais as suas expectativas para aderir ao programa? C12. Consegue identificar barreiras/dificuldades a participar no programa? C13. Consegue identificar facilitadores/aspetos que ajudam a participar no programa? Entrevista pós intervenção do programa C14. O que achou do programa? C15. Na sua opinião quais foram as barreiras/dificuldades de participar no programa? C16. E os facilitadores/aspetos que ajudaram à sua participação? C17. Continua a fazer atividade física sozinho/com ajuda?
C17.1 Se sim, O que o motiva a continuar? C17.2 Se não, Quais as razões para parar?
C18. Que impactos ou efeitos teve o programa em si? C19. E na pessoa a quem presta cuidados? C20. O que mudava no programa?
36
Appendix III - Interview guide people with dementia
Código:_______
PESSOA COM DEMÊNCIA INFORMAÇÃO SOCIODEMOGRÁFICA
P1. Género (1) [ ] Feminino (2) [ ] Masculino
P2. Idade _____________anos
P3. Habilitações literárias:
(1) Não frequentou o ensino formal [ ] (2) Até ao 1º ciclo Ensino Básico (4º ano) [ ] (3) Até ao 2º ciclo Ensino Básico (6º ano) [ ] (4) Até ao 3º ciclo Ensino Básico (9º ano) [ ] (5) Até ao Ensino Secundário (12º ano) [ ] (6) Curso Médio [ ] (7) Ensino Superior [ ]
P4. Estado Civil:
(1) Solteiro [ ] (2) Casado [ ] (3) Separado [ ] (4) Divorciado [ ] (5) Viúvo [ ] (6) União de facto [ ]
P5. Com quem vive? (1) sozinho [ ] (3) filhos(as) [ ] (5) outro(a) [ ] (2) esposo(a) ou Companheiro(a) [ ] (4) lar [ ] Quem __________
P6. Ocupação habitual: (1) Trabalho remunerado [ ] (2) Trabalho não remunerado [ ] (3) Estudante [ ] (4) Trabalho doméstico [ ] (5) Reformado [ ] (6) Desempregado (motivo saúde) [ ] (7) Desempregado (outros motivos) [ ] (8) Outro Especifique________________ [ ]
P7. Comorbilidades Colesterol [ ] Arteriosclerose [ ] Acidente Vascular Cerebral [ ] Osteoporose [ ] Doença cardíaca [ ] Doença pulmonar crónica [ ] Hipertensão [ ] Cancro [ ] Diabetes [ ] Depressão [ ] Artrite [ ] Outros: ___________________
P8.Diagnóstico principal _________________________________________________________
P9. Medicação (prescrita pelo médico ou adquirida sem receita médica) (1) NÃO [ ] (2) SIM [ ] se SIM, especificar quais ______________________
Entrevista pré intervenção do programa P10. Quem lhe falou sobre o programa? P11. Quais são as suas expectativas para realizar as atividades? P12. Consegue identificar barreiras/dificuldades a participar no programa? P13. Consegue identificar facilitadores/aspetos que ajudam a participar no programa? Entrevista pós intervenção do programa P14. O que achou do programa? P15. Na sua opinião quais foram as barreiras/dificuldades de participar no programa? P16. E os facilitadores/aspetos que ajudaram à sua participação? P17. Continua a fazer as atividades?
P14.1 Se sim, o que o motiva a continuar? P14.2 Se não, porque parou de os fazer?
P18. Que impactos ou efeitos teve o programa em si? P19. E na pessoa que esta mais perto de si? P20. O que mudava no programa?
top related