We aimed to understand the facilitators to developing and sustaining high-quality services for people with young onset dementia (YOD) and their families/supporters.

This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with commissioners and service managers, analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

A purposive sample of providers was selected from diverse areas and contrasting YOD services.

Eighteen senior staff from YOD services and two dementia service commissioners took part.

For commissioners, key interview topics were experiences of commissioning YOD services, perceived facilitators or barriers, and how future guidance should be structured for ease of use. For service providers, key topics explored experiences of delivering YOD services; what was achievable or challenging; how the service was funded; how it linked with broader provision for YOD in the area; and how guidance should be structured.

Recorded interviews lasted 30–40 minutes. Seven key facilitators to the development and sustaining of YOD services were identified: having knowledgeable, committed local champions; involvement of people living with YOD and family supporters; initial delivery within existing resources; partnership working within and between sectors; having a reflective, supportive organizational culture; gathering evidence of impact; and having wider support and guidance.

Improvements in provision for those with YOD and their families need to be built on understanding of service-level and interpersonal influences as well as on understanding of YOD itself. Our findings highlight a set of facilitators which need to be in place to establish and sustain high-quality YOD services that fit the local context.

To report the processes used to design and implement an assessment tool to inform funding decisions for competing health innovations in a tertiary hospital.

We designed an assessment tool for health innovation proposals with three components: “value to the institution,” “novelty,” and “potential for adoption and scaling.” The “value to the institution” component consisted of twelve weighted value attributes identified from the host institution’s annual report; weights were allocated based on a survey of the hospital’s leaders. The second and third components consisted of open-ended questions on “novelty” and “barriers to implementation” to support further dialogue. Purposive literature review was performed independently by two researchers for each assessment. The assessment tool was piloted during an institutional health innovation funding cycle.

We used 17 days to evaluate ten proposals. The completed assessments were shared with an independent group of panellists, who selected five projects for funding. Proposals with the lowest scores for “value to the institution” had less perceived impact on the patient-related value attributes of “access,” “patient centeredness,” “health outcomes,” “prevention,” and “safety.” Similar innovations were reported in literature in seven proposals; potential barriers to implementation were identified in six proposals. We included a worked example to illustrate the assessment process.

We developed an assessment tool that is aligned with local institutional priorities. Our tool can augment the decision-making process when funding health innovation projects. The tool can be adapted by others facing similar challenges of trying to choose the best health innovations to fund.

With the increase in technologies to support an aging population, health technology assessment (HTA) of aging-related technologies warrants special consideration. At Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi) 2016 and HTAi 2017, an international panel explored interests in HTA focused on aging.

Panelists from five countries shared the state of aging and HTA in their countries. Opportunities were provided for participants to discuss and rate the themes identified by the panelists.

In 2016, the highest ranked themes were: (i) identifying unmet needs of older adults that could be met by technology—how can HTA help?; (ii) differences in assessment of aging-related technologies—what is the scope?; and (iii) involvement of older adults and caregivers. These themes became the starting point for discussion in 2017, for which the highest ranked themes were: (i) identification of challenges in HTA and aging; and (ii) approaches to advancing effectiveness of HTA for aging.

These discussions allowed for examination of future directions for HTA and aging: engagement of older adults to inform the agenda of HTA and the broader public policy enterprise; a systems approach to thinking about needs of older persons should support the type and level of care desired by the individual rather than the health institutions, and HTA should reflect these desires when evaluating technological aides; and there is potential for health information systems and “big data” to support HTA activities that assess usability of technologies for older adults. We hope to build on the momentum of this community to continue exploring opportunities for aging and HTA.

We aimed to determine the rates of alcohol and substance use in geriatric hospital and community health settings, and to evaluate the performance of screening instruments.

A two-phase cross-sectional study was undertaken in geriatric and aged care psychiatry wards and associated community services of a teaching hospital. Participants were screened with the Brief Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) and the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST) for other substances; Geriatric Depression Scale-15 for mood; the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale; and the Subjective Quality of Life scale. Medical conditions were established. Screen positives for risky substance use continued with the full AUDIT, full ASSIST, CAGE, Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised, and the Functional Activities Questionnaire. Medical records were reviewed after three months to ascertain recognition and management of substance use.

Of 210 participants aged 60+ (mean age 81.9, 63.3% female) without dementia or delirium and Mini Mental State Examination score ≥24, 41 (19.5%) were screen positive – 36 (17.1%) for alcohol, seven for non-medical benzodiazepine use (3.3%) (four alcohol and benzodiazepine) and two for non-medical opioid use (0.95%). Screen positives differed from screen negatives on few demographic or health measures. On the ASSIST, 26 (12.4%) were rated as medium/high risk. The AUDIT-C with cut-point of ≥5 was the optimal measure for detecting risky alcohol use.

Many patients in geriatric health services have risky alcohol or substance use, but few clinical features distinguish them from other patients. Routine screening of alcohol and substance use is recommended.

Conflicts, social unrest, and disasters can significantly affect the ability of a healthcare system to provide for the needs of its citizens. The collapse of the primary healthcare system in Serbia is a model of the effects that civil unrest can have on the health of a population. However, with improving social and political conditions, focus now can be turned towards the greatly needed development and reorganization of the primary healthcare system in Serbia.

Due to the complexity of health-system reform in the post-conflict/post-disaster setting, attempts to restructure health services are fraught with pitfalls that often are unanticipated because of inadequate preliminary assessments. A multimodal assessment involving quantitative and qualitative methodologies may provide a more robust mechanism to identify key programmatic priorities and critical barriers for appropriate and sustainable health-system interventions. The purpose of this study is to describe a multimodal assessment using primary healthcare in post-conflict Serbia as a model.

Integrated quantitative and qualitative methodologies—system characterization and observation, focus group discussions, free-response questionnaires, and Q-methodology—were used to identify needs, problems, and potential barriers to primary healthcare development in Serbia. Participants included primary healthcare providers and administrators from 13 institutions throughout Belgrade.

Demographic data indicate a well-established infrastructure of primary health centers and stations. However, focus group discussions and free-response questionnaires reveal significant impediments to delivery of care: (1) Inadequate equipment, supplies, and medications; (2) Poor financial investment; (3) Discouraging worker salaries; (4) Few opportunities for professional development; and (5) Little emphasis on or respect for primary healthcare. Q-methodology of provider perceptions and opinions supports these concerns, shows remarkable consensus among participants, and provides further insights toward system development by grouping respondents into distinctive types.

This study identified the critical needs and barriers to development of primary healthcare in Serbia. This combined methodology may serve as a model for future health system assessments in the post-conflict and post-disaster settings.