Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Dec 22;15(12):e0243803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243803

How to adapt caring services to migration-driven diversity? A qualitative study exploring challenges and possible adjustments in the care of people living with dementia

Mette Sagbakken 1,*, Reidun Ingebretsen 2, Ragnhild Storstein Spilker 3
Editor: Antony Bayer4
PMCID: PMC7755196  PMID: 33351820

Abstract

Background

Research on how services can be adapted to meet the needs of people with dementia with an immigrant or minority ethnic background is scarce. Several approaches have been discussed: offering services adapted to language and culture, adding bilingual staff to mainstream services, and providing cultural awareness and sensitivity training to health personnel in mainstream services. This study seeks to develop more knowledge of challenges and possible adjustments related to receive and provide public care for people living with dementia with an immigrant or minority ethnic background.

Methods and materials

Through a qualitative design, including 19 single interviews, 3 dyad interviews and 16 focus groups with older immigrants, relatives of immigrants with dementia, and health personnel, we explored experiences and perceptions related to receive and provide care for people with immigrant backgrounds living with dementia in Norway. The analysis were conducted inspired by Kvale and Brinkmann’s three contexts of interpretations.

Results

Challenges related to language and communication were emphasized as the most fundamental barrier to provide adjusted care; exemplified through cases of isolation and agitation among patients not able to communicate. Care services framed by the majority culture creates feelings of alienation and exclusion. Not having access to specific types of food and the possibility to listen to songs, music, literature or TV programs representing a familiar and homely context may prevent use of public dementia care. Findings also point to differences in moral views regarding life-prolonging treatment in advanced stages of dementia.

Conclusion

This study argues that to be able to address challenges related to migration-driven diversity one needs holistic care services that addresses individual as well as socio-cultural needs. A linguistically and culturally diverse workforce may represent an important resource, potentially reducing some of the problems related to communication. On a structural level, it seems necessary to allocate more time and resources, including the use of interpreters, when assessing and getting to know persons with dementia with another linguistic and cultural background. However, shared language does not guarantee understanding. Rather, one needs to become familiar with each person’s way of being ill, on a cultural and individual level, including changes occurring living with progressive dementia. Getting to know a person and his/her family will also facilitate the possibility to ensure a more familiar and homely context. Thus, continuity in relation to language and culture is important, but continuity in relations may be equally important ensuring that people with dementia receive equitable care.

Introduction

Ageing in unfamiliar landscapes

Norway is becoming increasingly more ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse. Immigrants account for 14.7 percent of the country’s population, and those who are Norwegian-born to immigrant parents’ account for 3.5 percent of the population. Residents of today’s Norway come from 221 different countries and independent regions [1]. The immigrant population is, on average, considerably younger than the general population: only 4 percent of persons in Norway older than 70 years are immigrants. However, according to Statistics Norway, this number is projected to reach 27 percent in 2060 [2]. This poses challenges with regards to health and care services on how to adapt and organise their services in order to serve a more diverse group of older people.

The Global Alzheimer’s and Dementia Action Alliance [3] emphasizes that dementia is a global public health challenge. Indeed, dementia is described as the greatest global challenge for health and social care in the 21st century [4]. In Norway, a country with 5.3 million inhabitants, it is estimated that approximately 80,000 people are living with dementia and that approximately 10,000 persons develop the disorder each year [5]. With the ageing of the population, the number of people affected by dementia could double by 2040–2050 [6]. Age related cognitive impairment (not diagnosed) or dementia causes extensive use of health and care services in Norway. More than 80 percent of those living in nursing homes and more than 40 percent of people > 70 years receiving home-based services have some sort of cognitive impairment or dementia [7]. In recent years, there has been an increasing demand for personnel in health and care services in Norway. This demand is partly due to the increase in the number of older people living with complex clinical conditions, including the increasing amount of people with dementia. International recruitment of nurses and medical doctors has been one way to meet this challenge. Another solution has been to recruit and train immigrants living in Norway to work in nursing homes and home care services [8].

Immigrants’ experiences of aging and health are diverse as they belong to different socio-economic, ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups and have varying levels of education and work experience. Further, they have various reasons for migrating, and have lived in Norway for different lengths of time [9]. Family structures and relationships are diverse both within and between different immigrant groups. However, many older immigrants come from societies where family structures and expectations of care from family members are stronger than in Western societies, often involving strong normative feelings of attachment, responsibility, and reciprocity [10, 11]. For immigrants from low- and middle-income countries, there has been a shift from high mortality and high birth rates to low mortality and low birth rates. This has increased the actual number of living generations and decreased the number of relatives that can live together with their extended families [12]. Additionally, immigrant families may be separated or divided during the migration process, which can make ‘traditional extended family care’ difficult to provide. Last, the competing demands associated with different family members taking on new roles in new settings can make it challenging to allocate time to care for family members who become severely ill [12]. Thus, even though few older members of immigrant groups live in care facilities in the Nordic countries [13], this pattern may change as an increasing number of immigrants become older and potentially develop dementia. However, current care services are undoubtable designed for a more homogenous group of people, and it is argued that this poses challenges to equitable services [14].

Ethnic differences in the use of dementia care services have been documented internationally [1517], as well as in Norway [18]. Different studies show that various minority ethnic and immigrant groups’ access diagnostic services at a later stage, are prescribed and use anti-dementia medication to a lesser degree and are less likely to receive care in a nursing home [1518]. There are several potential explanations for these differences, such as cultural differences regarding caregiving and family networks, perception and recognition of dementia and associated symptoms, negative experiences with health and care services, and language barriers. Another reason for the underutilization of services may be that the service needs of minority ethnic and immigrant groups are unidentified and therefore unmet; thus, the services are not as accessible to all patients groups [1416]. Several studies show that many older people with minority ethnic and immigrant backgrounds and dementias are living within extended family networks and tend to use the formal services of dementia care to a lesser extent than the majority population [17, 19]. Patterns of family caregiving are found to be shaped by factors such as lack of awareness of public services; barriers related to availability and accessibility; stigma associated with dementia and stigma related to the use of formal services; language barriers; and viewing existing services as culturally inappropriate [19, 20]. Seeing services as culturally inappropriate relates not only to issues such as food habits or different customs but also to concepts such as filial piety [19]. This concept refers to a strong identification and solidarity with family members and involve strong normative feelings of responsibility and loyalty in taking care of and being good to one’s parents [21]. For example, a study on dementia caregiving among Iranian immigrants in Sweden found as a prevalent perception that dementia could be caused by a lack of social relations, social interaction, and care; thus, the shame associated with not fulfilling the standards of filial piety was strong. This perception made it difficult to receive help from any type of formal services [22]; findings similar to studies among minority ethnic groups in a variety of contexts [17, 20, 23, 24]. Thus, perceptions about causality combined with strong cultural norms of family care may cause people with minority ethnic and immigrant backgrounds to use relevant services either late or not at all [20].

There is little research on how services could be developed and adapted to meet the needs of people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds living with dementia. Several approaches have been discussed in the literature: offering special services adapted to language and culture, adding bilingual staff to mainstream services, and increasing the cultural awareness and sensitivity training of health personnel in mainstream services [25]. Adding bilingual staff seem to be particularly important as persons with minority ethnic background often face stronger problems with communication due to a lack of knowledge of, or dementia-related loss of a second language [26, 27]. Another dimension of this, is that language and culture are suggested to strongly overlap, recognised among others through the principle of linguistic relativity; a concept that illustrates how the structure of the language is shaped by the speakers’ world view or cognition [28]. Thus, the way of speaking, such as the use of certain words, linguistic categories, or by the use of implicit references to religious and culturally shared knowledge (for example well known historical events, fairy-tales, and songs) will influence the ability to understand one another [26].

Aim of the study

This study seeks to provide more knowledge on challenges and possible adjustments related to provide public care for people with immigrant backgrounds living with dementia in Norway. This topic is approached from the perspectives of health personnel, relatives of people with dementia as well as older people with an immigrant background and seeks to explore dimensions related to both culture and language in different care settings.

Use of concepts

In this paper, we use “minority ethnic groups” when we refer to studies from outside Scandinavia, as this is the most commonly used term in these papers. However, in the parts of the manuscript where we refer to Norwegian statistics, Norwegian/ Scandinavian studies, and the present project, we use the term “Immigrant”, which is the terminology used by Statistics Norway, and is the most commonly used term in academic and public discourse in Norway. Importantly, the use of “Immigrant” also indicates that we are not referring to our native population, such as the Saami’s.

Materials and methods

This study is part of a comprehensive study on older immigrants and dementia in Norway, where the overall goal has been to assist the Norwegian Directorate of Health in designing appropriate strategies for the care of immigrants with dementia. Target groups for this project are immigrants above the age of 50 years, relatives of immigrants with dementia (family caregivers), health personnel and care workers, and decision and policy makers.

Since research on the care needs of people with dementia with an immigrant background in Norway is limited, the research team considered qualitative methods to be the most appropriate approach. The chosen theoretical underpinning was phenomenology; a methodology that attempts to understand the meaning of events and interactions within the framework of how individuals make sense of their world. Through qualitative individual and dyad interviews as well as focus groups discussions, we sought to gather the different participants’ expectations, views and experiences regarding receiving and providing care to people with dementia who have an immigrant background. We did not seek the views of groups from particular ethnic (or religious) backgrounds. Rather, the position of interest is that of being a person with a different linguistic and cultural background in need of care due to cognitive impairment (not diagnosed) and dementia; and the experiences of those providing relevant services.

The research project has already published 3 papers; one paper explored the perceptions of dementia and cognitive impairment among healthy older immigrants and relatives of immigrants with dementia [29]; another paper explored the experiences of health personnel with regard to identifying, assessing and diagnosing immigrants with dementia [30], while the third paper focused on different care patterns among immigrant groups [31].

Sample strategy

To be able to gather views and experiences from a variety of relevant respondents, we applied a purposeful sampling strategy aimed at variation [32] in regards to factors such as gender and ethnic background among older persons and relatives of persons with dementia, and professional background, workplace, type of experience, and ethnic background among health personnel being interviewed.

Older immigrants

The overall study was initiated by conducting nine Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with 51 healthy older immigrants from 10 different countries; exploring views and experiences regarding accepted and common treatment and care practices to people with age-related cognitive impairment or dementia. We obtained a purposeful sampling strategy, aiming at including many different perspectives and experiences. The participants were recruited, by the second author, from a variety of interest organizations for immigrants, religious communities and senior centres. The final sample consisted of 34 women and 17 men between 50 and 80 years of age originally from Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Mexico, Chile, Poland, and Bosnia.

Relatives to family member affected by dementia

In Norway, only 4 percent of those above 70 years are immigrants [2], and few older members of immigrant groups live in care facilities in Norway [13]. Thus, it was difficult to identify and recruit relatives to persons living with dementia, and we had to rely on convenience sampling. With the assistance of health personnel in diagnostic clinics at hospitals, nursing homes and day care centres or community-based home care, 12 relatives between 25 and 78 years old who had family members affected by dementia were recruited for in-depth interviews (IDIs). Among the relatives, there were 10 women and 2 men; six of the women and both men were children of the person living with dementia (aged 25–55), and the remaining four women were spouses (aged 65–78). The relatives originally came from Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Vietnam, Turkey, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, and Chile.

Health personnel

To gain knowledge of the views and experiences of health personnel working with people from immigrant groups, 18 health personnel (mainly nurses and nursing assistants) were recruited from community-based home care services and nursing homes in Oslo. During this process we found it difficult to find health personnel who had direct experience with patients living with dementia representing another linguistic and cultural background (see reference [2, 13]). Thus, also in this case we had to rely on a convenience sampling; using already existing network within local care services that we knew had patients with immigrant background and dementia. These service providers, 15 women and 3 men, in the age range of 35 to 55, participated in four FGDs. Later in the research process, in order to reach saturation, we broadened our sample and made a purposive selection of 27 health professionals; 18 women and 9 men in the age range of 38 to 62, originating from seven different countries (Sweden, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Morocco, Philippines, Pakistan and India) in addition to Norway. To be able to access participants who had experiences with older immigrants with age-related cognitive impairment or dementia, we combined an approach where we sent an information letter about the study to all GP centres in four districts of Oslo with a high proportion of immigrant populations, and through using existing networks and contacts. When recruiting in other parts of Norway, we sent information letters and called persons and institutions that seemed relevant; such as nursing homes and home-based services in areas with significant immigrant populations. The participants represented different parts of Oslo as well as six different counties in the northern, western, and southeast parts of Norway, and they participated in three FGDs, seven IDIs, and three dyad interviews (DYI). The participants were GPs, medical doctors, nurses, auxiliary nurses, and leaders of nursing homes, and they worked in GP centres, nursing homes, short-term nursing homes, day care centres, home-based services, geriatric polyclinics, psychiatric polyclinics, “memory clinics” (diagnostic departments in hospitals), a community health centre with services for refugees, or were part of a primary health care dementia team.

The research context

Norway has a tax-financed public health-care system, and the maximum fee for health services is 230 euros per year (excluding dental care). Public sources account for more than 85% of the total health expenditure, and most private health financing comes from household out-of-pocket payments. Thus, in principle all persons registered in Norway (including all immigrants who are legal residents) have equal access to health care such as services provided by the general practitioner (GP), hospital services, homebased services and nursing homes. The municipalities are responsible for primary health care and social services, including the provision of care and practical help for older persons receiving day care or care at home, or for those living in nursing homes [33].

The research team

The research team consisted of three female researchers with different backgrounds. The first author (MS) is a registered nurse and a professor in global, public health. The second author (RI) is a researcher and a specialist in clinical geropsychology, while the last author (RS) is a registered nurse with an MPhil in Health economics, policy and management. The authors were responsible for conducting all the interviews and focus group discussions.

Data production

The initial FGDs with healthy older immigrants lasted 90 to 120 minutes and took place at their respective organizations or at the researchers’ workplace. In one of the FGDs, a research assistant speaking the participants’ language moderated the group, and the researcher was present. In five of the FGDs, the group discussions were conducted in Norwegian because the participants spoke adequate Norwegian. An assistant who spoke the mother language of the participants was, however, present to help translate and explain when needed. In the remaining four focus groups, all spoke good or fluent Norwegian. All the FGDs consisted of five to eight participants and the interviewer encouraged a discussion around each of the introduced themes. Questions related to perceptions regarding aetiology and common and accepted treatment practices for people living with dementia, were addressed using a semi-structured interview guide. The questions in the interview guide were all inspired by a thorough literature review that was part of the overall study commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The guide contained relatively few themes to allow time for in-depth discussions and for new themes to be discovered.

The semi-structured IDIs with family caregivers lasted 60 to 150 minutes and were held in their homes, at the research centre (NAKMI), or at the nursing home where their relative resided. Family members who did not speak Norwegian were offered an interpreter. Questions related to how the family had managed the symptoms and disease from initial symptoms until the present situation and how and to what extent they had initiated help and cooperated with existing services. Their views on best possible care and responsibility for care, including potential specific concerns related to family members with dementia and a different cultural and linguistic background, were addressed.

The IDIs, DYIs, and the FGDs with health personnel (five to eight participants) lasted 60 to 120 minutes, were conducted in Norwegian and took place at the participants’ workplace. A semi-structured guide was used, and the questions were to a certain extent adjusted to the profession and position held by the participants. The aim was to gather descriptions regarding participants’ perspectives and experiences in relation to the assessment, treatment and care needs of persons with dementia representing immigrant groups and to interpret the meaning of these descriptions.

The questions in these interview guides were inspired partly by a literature review, partly by perspectives provided by the first FGDs with older adults with immigrant backgrounds, and partly by discussions of experiences with experts in the field (health personnel, researchers, nongovernmental organization representatives) who served as a resource group throughout the research period. The approach was flexible in the sense that the interviews and discussions were guided by answers and themes introduced by the participants. All the data were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis and interpretation of text

The analysis was not an isolated process, but rather a continuum starting from the beginning of the study until its completion. To optimize the analytical process, all three researchers wrote descriptive and reflective logs. These logs, among others, identified emerging themes and informed and inspired the ongoing analytical reflections and discussions. Data from the initial FGDs with older immigrants from 10 different countries were analysed and discussed before the interviews were conducted with relatives and health personnel; thus, these data served as inspiration for identifying themes and questions in consecutive interviews (IDIs and FGDs), and helped contextualize data in the following interviews. All the material was analysed and interpreted following the general principles of Kvale and Brinkman’s [34] descriptions of levels of interpretation: 1) Self-understanding, 2) Critical common sense understanding, and 3) Theoretical/abstracted understanding. These three interpretational contexts derive from different explications of the researcher’s perspective, lead to different levels of analysis and serve to make explicit the analytic questions posed to a statement. Thus, aiming at reproducing the participants’ own understanding (level 1), the interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim after the interviews were conducted. Then, two of the co-authors read the transcribed interviews in their entirety to acquire an overall impression of the content. This process involved searching the entire body of material for patterns and deviances and for similar and contrasting statements. Units of meaning, inspired by the study’s aims and by discussions between the authors, were identified by color-coding. Based on discussions related to which themes each units of meaning represented, the researchers formulated what the subjects themselves understood to be the meaning of their statements in a condensed form. The next step (level 2), which involved a critical common-sense understanding, included a condensation of the wider frame of interpretation. By adding a general understanding about the content of the statement we widened the scope, thus amplifying and enriching the interpretation of the participants’ statements. This part of the analysis generated preliminary themes by labelling the paragraphs and sentences with sub-themes. In the last phase (level 3), the sub-themes were linked together and described through central themes reflecting the objectives of the study. This more comprehensive interpretation involved contextualizing the critical common-sense understanding using previous research and to some extent theory, thus moving our analysis to a higher level of abstraction (34), as illustrated in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Example of the analytical process.

1. Self-understanding “It is obvious that those immigrants that are here (nursing home) are the most isolated… they have no one to talk to often, and just sit there without being able to communicate
“It often happens, when there are frustrations, when they are not able to understand the language (anymore) […], or when they are not able to speak Norwegian, then it develops into aggression … acting-out”
2. Critical common-sense understanding Not being able to communicate causing isolation and frustration: Respondents told how not being able to talk in the majority language or another shared language seemed to represent a source of isolation, loneliness, aggression/agitation among patients; thus also a challenge for health personnel in providing good care. Several mentioned that some of the patients with immigrant background did not have relatives/social network; thus being particularly vulnerable in relation to becoming isolated.
3. Abstracted/theoretical understanding Studies on communication across linguistic and cultural diversity show that residents who do not speak the majority language tend to have less communication with the staff compared to people representing the majority group (38, 39) and tend to sit more alone (37). The relationship between agitation and people with dementia who do not speak the majority language is also thematised (43); patients having the majority language as the second language are associated with significantly higher agitation level. Such a position can be seen in the light of intersectionality theory (54) as lack of exposure to the majority language and culture; including a lack of social network are likely to be interlinked with migration history; ethnicity; level of education; job opportunities/experience; gender roles; thus creating differences in the possibility of accessing adjusted care.

Ethics

The project was registered and treated by the data protection officer (personvernombudet) at Oslo University Hospital and the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD), and it was granted permission before the data collection started. The project was submitted to the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) South East but was considered to be outside the remit of the Act on Medical and Health Research and could therefore be implemented without the approval of the REC. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study and that they could withdraw their participation without giving any reason. All participants gave written consent to participate in the study.

Results

Receiving care in unfamiliar surroundings

One of the topics that was frequently raised by health personnel as well as relatives was that many of the patients who were placed in nursing homes or used day care centres were not familiar with these types of care institutions. Additionally, many of the immigrants living with dementia and their relatives had maintained their cultural traditions and practices, and moving into- or spending the day in an institution framed by the majority culture could create a feeling of alienation. One of the relatives pointed to this by underlining how “sharing food, tastes, smells, sounds, language and music contributes to build communities” and how the presence or absence of such references would be interpreted as “whether one belong or not”. Another relative described how she, despite needing relief, declined the offer of day care for her mother at a centre for people with dementia. Exploring the facilities, she found that her mother would be the only one with an immigrant background, and she concluded that her mother would not feel at home there. Yet another daughter told that she took her mother out of the day care centre because her mother was the only one with immigrant background and she felt that she was not included in the community:

This generation of the (Norwegian) older people … it is probably going to changethey are not very inclusive, I felt it went very wrong.”

Also among the participants in the FGD’s with older immigrants there were examples of relatives that had avoided asking for formal care because they were afraid that the service given was not linguistically or otherwise adapted to their needs. Similarly, also in this group there were examples of relatives that had stopped using public services because they felt that the help the person with dementia received was not “fitted” to their needs; either due to language barriers, or a feeling that their family member became isolated in the prevailing majority culture of the institution.

Relatives also offered several examples of how they had tried different types of public help but that they ended up “being on call” for different reasons, such as having to assist due to language barriers or due to the older person refusing to accept the food or the care provided by others. A daughter tells about her experiences with her father:

We have tried a day care centre and short-term stay at a nursing home, but we could not leave him there. When he was there (nursing home), we shared the time in between us (sisters), one came in the morning and the other came later to relieve… […], so we more or less did everything. After two days, we tried to avoid being there the whole day, but then they (the staff) did not manage to feed and give him the personal care he needed …”

In this example, the daughter found the staff to be kind and to be doing their best, but as they were unknown to her father and unable to speak his language, he was afraid and unable to relax. They decided to take him home.

Health personnel shared similar experiences, relating both to relatives who found it difficult to let go of responsibility and to patients who could not thrive due to other habits and customs. A GP with an immigrant background herself elaborates:

… and then there is this question about integration. How are we to integrate these immigrants [in nursing homes] who are used to only being at home … and where they always have their family around them…? Suddenly they are to meet other people. That is not that easy…”

As stated in the quote, being accustomed to mainly relating to family members, particularly when those relations involve cultural or religiously based rationalities of thought and behaviour, care preferences and food habits, would make it difficult to provide adjusted care within the frameworks of the nursing homes’ or even day care centres.

Receiving care within the frames of unfamiliar care practises

Another finding of interest, often addressed by health personnel, was that some of the relatives had a different view on how care was to be provided in final stages of life. In all the cases mentioned, the unifying idea was that it was up to God (Allah) to decide when a person was to die, and up to that point one was to use all available means to preserve life. A nurse in a FGD elaborates on one of her experiences related to food intake:

They (relatives) said they wanted to keep their father alive, no matter what it took. It was mainly related to the issue of nutrition … that he had to have this and that…”

One of the relatives being interviewed related his involvement in the care to how his religious and ethical views on life-prolonging treatment were in contrast to the view among the health personnel in the nursing home, who encouraged him to allow his father to die “in peace and quiet”. Although his father was very ill, being in a late stage of dementia, he still wanted to secure him the best possible medical help:

He is my father. I know he had a strong will to live… Now it is my responsibility to secure him the best possible help…”

There were several instances where different ideas around life-prolonging treatment led to conflicts between health personnel and relatives (and sometimes between relatives), and where the county administrator (Fylkesmann) and/or the relatives’ trusted Iman were involved in trying to resolve disagreements. The discussion mainly focused on whether one could use force to secure nutrition in late and terminal stages of care. A nurse elaborates on a case where the patient, living with dementia, was in a terminal phase:

She (relative) sat there the whole night and held his hands while he was sleeping. She was awake … to make sure that he did not pull out the tube nutrition…”

Other health personnel mentioned that such situations or similar types of situations could also conflict with another value-loaded idea that they often encountered: avoiding the use of painkillers and sedatives as part of (terminal) care–even though the patient (in their view) needed such medication to be able to sleep, to calm down, and to reduce pain.

In general, relatives’ strong involvement in this type of treatment and care decision-making was described by health personnel as difficult to relate to, as it involved ethical as well as juridical dilemmas.

The importance of familiar food

Health personnel, as well as individuals in the FGDs with older immigrants, frequently mentioned food habits as one important issue, even though specific food requests, such as access to halal food, tended to be fulfilled. Participants in a FGD in a nursing home, who were experienced with having residents with an immigrant background, used time to discuss the topic of food:

(OBJ 1) “…and then it is the food culture, which is very important… So many are used to eating really spicy food, and then they get (Norwegian) fish balls in sauce… […]

(OBJ 2)They do get halal food, but the food is not varied […] It is the same type of food that is offered all the time, like halal sausages or… […] It has no taste in it, it is nothing compared to what they are used to…”

Thus, even though efforts are often made to adhere to important food habits, there was a general concern about food, which led some relatives to bring their own food. Health personnel described relatives as a resource in regard to food, as many patients would not eat or would forget to eat if they were served something they did not like. However, when relatives brought food, this would sometimes conflict with the routines and the rules of the nursing homes, as it was difficult to get an overview of the food intake of the patient because the pattern of bringing food was often inconsistent. Some of the personnel also claimed that bringing food from the outside was not in line with the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. Several participants, across the groups of respondents, raised the issue of adjusting the nursing homes in a way that allowed relatives to prepare food for their family members. One of the doctors at one of the nursing homes suggested the possibility of allowing relatives to cook at the nursing homes:

It would be nice if relatives were able to cook some more food themselves. I would like that. A new nursing home should take it into account…”

In homebased services the difficulties in providing adjusted food was also often raised. Due to limited resources, the nurses could only offer food being easy and fast to make; often implying typically Norwegian “fast food” such as eggs or slices of bread. A nurse refers to a typical example where they had offered to help with preparation of food to relieve relatives to a person with dementia:

We talked about providing food such as “Fjordland” (ready-made dishes to be heated), sandwiches or eggs, and that no, we could not prepare anything else … and then they withdrew. Because it does not correspond with their culture and then they rather provide the services themselves…”

Providing and receiving care in unfamiliar languages

Even though some topics were referred to as cultural differences that were sometimes difficult to relate to, most of the respondents (health personnel, relatives and older immigrants) tended to describe language and thus communication as the main challenge in providing adjusted care for people with dementia with immigrant backgrounds.

According to different participants, many of the patients with dementia representing immigrant groups do not speak Norwegian or have lost or partly lost the Norwegian language they have acquired as their second or third language. Some used a combination of languages that only the close relatives could understand, making the staff dependent on the relatives to understand the patient. Lack of a common language between the person with dementia and the formal carers made it challenging to adjust care; described by the health personnel as difficulties in identifying and assessing the (often changing) care needs of patients. Further, language difficulties made it difficult to understand whether there was a general misunderstanding or whether there was a development in the clinical picture. One of the nurses exemplified how changes in the ability to communicate normally would alert health personnel to consider clinical changes. However, when the language did not provide such information, such changes could be overlooked. A nurse elaborates:

If we say something to a Norwegian and he does not understand, we will wonder more about what is wrong. In the case of immigrants, we may think that it is "the language", and that we said something he did not understand, and we probably do not investigate further…”

Due to budget constraints, interpreters were seldom used, even during the admission process to a nursing home. The same was described in homebased services; health personnel reporting that they were not assigned more time nor resources (such as interpreters) during assessments or the regular home visits. Many emphasized the difficulties in finding ways to get to know the person living with dementia, and that they had to rely more than usual on relatives (if accessible). An experienced nurse assistant in home-based services elaborates the challenges related to care for persons who did not speak Norwegian and whom they did not really know:

It is difficult sometimes, if they are alone when we arrive (at home)… What do they want to eat, we don’t know that… No, they don’t like bread (Norwegian sandwich), they don’t like this and that, and then it becomes like […] but what do you want then? […] Then, it develops into …’leave me alone!’”

(Patients expressing that they want the nurse assistant to go).

Others mentioned patients they knew who had been at the nursing homes for years without being able to communicate with health personnel or other residents. This was particularly relevant for some of the immigrants who had come alone to Norway and who had never been reunified with their families. A doctor at one of the nursing homes talks about these situations:

It is obvious that those immigrants that are here (nursing home) are the most isolated… they have no one to talk to often, and just sit there without being able to communicate…”

Both health personnel and relatives described not being able to talk to patients in a shared language as a source of loneliness potentially causing depression, anxiety, aggression and agitation. Responding to a question about the challenges of caring for nursing patients with a different cultural and linguistic background, one of the nurses in a FGD with health personnel from a dementia ward in a nursing home captures what seemed to be a prevalent understanding:

It is the language that is… that plays more… (of a role) than culture in a dementia department. […] It often happens, when there are frustrations, when they are not able to understand the language (anymore) […], or when they are not able to speak Norwegian, then it develops into aggression … acting-out […] Today I had one (referring to one patient with dementia) that has big problems because he only speaks(European language) […] He does not understand … he thinks everyone knows his language… that is what he believes… And he expresses that he thinks that no one cares, and that he is left here […], and then he sits and cries or he lies down on the floor kicking about.”

Health personal described different ways of trying to manage the language barrier, such as the use of “Google translate”. One nurse assistant in a nursing home described how this might help in some situations:

We have a tablet computer in the ward, so we can use that one. We just talk on that application and it translates. […] it is not totally right (the content) but it helps a little…, it helps…”

Others described using colleagues who were able to speak the person’s language and how that would help to relieve difficult situations. Some of the nurses or nurse assistants were even called on the phone when off-duty to help calm down agitated patients who spoke a language the others did not understand. A nurse assistant tells about a situation he frequently encountered:

There is this patient; he has lived in Norway more than 40 years, so he can speak English and Norwegian. […] Now he is getting anxious, because he is losing all the languages. So… Urdu helps him now. […] When he is agitated or frustrated he only speaks Urdu. […] So I have to go to him to calm him down.”

Some of the health personal being interviewed described how they tended to speak Norwegian to patients who had another primary language and who did not speak Norwegian. Although it did not “feel right”, it was somehow easy to do because the patient did not respond. Others described how they went around with different miniature dictionaries or some words on a list, which they used in situations where patients needed to be calmed down. In general, language and related communication barriers were described as the most important barrier in preventing aggression and acting-out behaviour and to providing good treatment and care in general.

Lack of continuity of care

As emphasized by health personnel as well as relatives, language barriers were often combined with another important and related dimension; lack of continuity of care. A patient’s daughter, receiving help from home-based services, exemplified this:

He got help with showering, theoretically yes, but with different people all the time. Someone spoke bad English, some bad Norwegian […] There was simply no platform for cooperation … no continuity. Without continuity, comfort is not given; dementia makes it impossible to have new people coming all the time. They thought that my father was hard to help…”

As pointed out by the relative, getting to know an individual patient and his or her ways of verbal and non-verbal expression demands continuity, not only (verbal) language knowledge. Due to language barriers and a lack of established and continuous relations with trusted health personnel, some relatives reported that they felt forced back into the role of the main caretaker.

The need for continuity was also supported by health personnel and was frequently discussed in interviews and focus groups. In one of the FGD’s involving homecare nurses, continuity was linked to the possibility to get to know the person; including his/her body language:

Most of the patients have relatives, and you have to talk to them too (to get to know the patient) […] and then you will observe over time…, because if you already know the patient a bit, then you will manage to see if the situation is not ok…”

When asked what type of knowledge and competencies health personnel needed, the discussion in one of the FGD’s with health personnel turned into a focus of the need of continuity of care:

There is a need for more continuity […] so that there is not that many to relate to, because then it becomes difficult (for health personnel) to identify needs… (group members nodding). And it is also difficult to receive help when you don’t know the one that is coming. If you are to take care of those people …. and, even more in relation to people from other cultures…. you need more continuity and more time.”

Views on culture-specific care

One of the questions posed to all the participating health personnel was whether they, based on their experiences, believed that there was a need for nursing homes adjusted to specific cultures. With a few exceptions, nurses, nurse assistants and doctors objected to that idea, arguing that bringing people together based on culture and language would go against the ideal of integration and inclusion and potentially feel discriminating. Several participants mentioned that one should avoid “ghettofication” or “segregation” in nursing homes and that the diversity of Norwegian society should also be represented in the nursing home context.

In the FGDs with older immigrants, the participants first of all underlined the importance of being able to speak their native language when discussing the need for adaption. Different types of language support and to have staff with linguistic and “cultural competence” in both home services, day care centres and nursing homes were seen as important. Health personnel also addressed the need of further competencies, and related this to more knowledge on different ways of understanding and handling dementia; including different perspectives on dignified ways of dying or rationalities behind life-prolonging treatment. A manager at one of the nursing homes emphasized the need for a broad type of competence:

It says in the guidelines for nursing homes, that we are to adjust for people’s spirituality needs and practices. That means that we have to have knowledge of other cultures and other religions. However, in Norway, there has been a tendency to focus on value neutrality… but we should include more openness to different philosophies of life… […] In general, people working in the health sector need more knowledge of how to relate to opposing philosophies of life….”

According to this participant, addressing diversity in monocultural institutions would imply knowledge of–as well as acceptance and facilitation of–how to integrate other philosophies and religious practices. Thus, institutions should be open instead of neutral in their approaches to different patients.

Even though most of the participants did not seem to embrace the idea of culturally profiled services, many of the older immigrants as well as relatives expressed a need for more staff from the residents’ countries of origin to be part of the services. A person in one of the FGDs with older immigrants states:

“… when nurses are from the same culture ….it is easier to understand both culture and language.”

As emphasized above, coming from the same country may facilitate understanding of linguistic expressions but also an understanding of that person’s historical and cultural background. A few participants saw the integration of staff with varied ethnicities or language backgrounds as an entitlement, emphasizing that older patients with dementia, should be entitled to talk to someone who understood them; thus, these participants supported the idea of culturally profiled nursing homes. A doctor with an immigrant background herself explains her thoughts:

A Pakistani patient should be allowed to talk with, communicate with, a Pakistani doctor. A Somali patient should be able to talk with another Somali patient …and doctor… […] In the last period of life, you should be able to gain that type of respect, that honour, that dignity. In a way, this is about them being allowed to keep that.. [dignity). If they forget things… and we think “well, they don’t understand anything anyway…”, that is wrong…”

As illustrated above, those who favoured care services with a cultural profile emphasized the importance of language, i.e., the importance of being understood and thus preserving adapted and dignified care. Others mentioned the need to move away from the idea of mono-cultural nursing homes, in the sense that only the majority culture is represented through the food or activities being offered. Across the groups of respondents, many participants suggested that instead of separating people from different cultures, one should adjust to culturally specific needs within the frames of the care services. This could be done by providing room for different religious activities, international TV channels, wider variety and individually based food and care, larger rooms allowing many family members to visit at the same time, and by allowing international or individually based music to be played in one’s private room.

Some of those who emphasized the need for nurses, doctors and nurse assistants who represented diversity in language as well as cultural backgrounds related this need not only to variety in language and cultural competencies but also to what some of the participants described as a more dedicated trust in people representing another culture. A nurse assistant in a FGD elaborates:

Interviewee: “No matter what, being a patient with dementia here (nursing home), the way I experience it, independent of being from Pakistan or Afghanistan, they see that I am from… (pause)

Interviewer: “Another culture?”

Interviewee: “Yes. They call me more often than the others (nurses). It is natural…”

This participant, as well as other participants among the health personnel, pointed to a trust between patients and health personnel from the same language and region or culture. However, as indicated in the quote, the experience also seemed to include some type of trust between the patients and health personnel who did not represent the majority culture.

Discussion

This study shows that there are needs related to language or culture that appear challenging for health care personnel to meet. Some of these needs are related to areas that may be easily solved, such as facilitating preparation of specific types of food or facilitating the possibility to listen to songs, music, literature or TV programs representing a familiar and homely context. Allowing for this type of individual care might be crucial to families considering using formal support such as home-based services or nursing homes [16]. On the other hand, there might be more challenging differences, as exemplified by the health personnel and relatives who described different views in regard to life-prolonging treatment in advanced stages of dementia: views representing basic philosophical or moral differences in approaches to managing the last stage of life. Finally, challenges related to language; communication and understanding were put forward as the most common and fundamental barrier to provide adapted and dignified care within the framework of a nursing home, day care centre or home-based services.

Loss of community, culture and language

Regardless of ethnicity, being placed in a residential care facility, such as a nursing home, implies different losses for all people: abstract losses such as loss of role, lifestyle, freedom, autonomy and privacy; material losses, such as loss of home and personal belongings; and social losses, including loss of contact with family, friends and pets [35]. As exemplified in this study, older people with immigrant backgrounds, as members of minority groups, will face additional challenges when adjusting to institutional living organized by the dominant culture. In addition to a potential loss of the care that was previously provided by the family, people with minority ethnic backgrounds may experience loss of culture and loss of community [31]. As exemplified in our study, food, drinks and care practises may be unfamiliar. In addition, there is a potential loss of music, literature, folklore, TV programs or religious rituals, and this loss can contribute to a great sense of isolation for the older person [16, 36, 37]. Another major cultural loss is that of not being able to communicate in the mother tongue. Both relatives and health personnel acknowledged how a lack of common language affects the ability to get to know the person with dementia, provide adjusted care and prevent social isolation. In a recent study on communication across linguistic and cultural diversity in a residential dementia care setting in Sweden, observations showed that the residents who did not speak Swedish communicated less and tended to sit alone more than those who spoke Swedish [38]; similar to findings in our study. Also, earlier studies do show that minority ethnic groups in care facilities for older people tend to have less communication with the staff compared to people representing the majority group [39, 40]. This pattern is related not only to language but to differences in lifestyle and care practises between the health personnel working in the institutions and the residents representing minority ethnic groups [35, 36]. In another Swedish study [41], which included nursing staff, relatives and residents in a care setting for older Finns speaking Finnish, it was found that the common Finnish language provided the residents with a feeling of belonging to a group with shared identity. Sharing the language made the residents able to talk about how the war had affected their lives, and these experiences were known by health personnel and recognized by other residents by nodding or through comments. Also in the dementia ward, there were examples of knowledge of each other’s past and present lives, such as residents reciting songs or nursery rhymes together; friendships developed based on what was interpreted as some sort of mutual understanding of community [41]. A scoping review [26] exploring the influence of language and culture in the caregiving of people with minority ethnic background living with dementia, underlines this strong relation between language and culture. In light of the tendency for people with different linguistic and cultural background to loose familiarity with the second language and cultural context of the country they are living in, the review concludes that “culture-linguistic” congruity is highly beneficial in securing the wellbeing of people with dementia; and that the lack of such congruity has the opposite effect. The authors underline that the cultural dimension is important to address since specific aspects of culture, such as religion, traditional customs and food, are important needs that can persist into the dementia process. However, through referring to the concept of linguistic relativity, culture is underlined as a similarly crucial dimension in regard to language; a relation mirrored in the concept of culture-linguistic congruity. Thus, as shown in this study, language and “culture” are not separate entities but are highly intertwined, and a lack of a common language can therefore make it difficult to communicate as well as establish trustful relations. In other words, older people from immigrant and minority ethnic groups may be expected to become familiar and adjust to a partly unfamiliar culture and language at a time when they are particularly vulnerable with regard to maintaining and confirming their sense of identity [42].

Language and access to adjusted care

In line with the above arguments, our findings indicate that there is a risk that a person who is unable to speak the majority language might be misinterpreted, and thus changes in the clinical picture may remain undiscovered. Nurses described how changes in the ability to communicate; normally alerting them to consider clinical changes, could be overlooked in cases where language did not provide such information; suggesting therapeutic nihilism in the meeting with patients not speaking the majority language [43].

Other studies show that misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and inability to communicate in their own language may cause older persons to become more passive and dependent, with the consequence of deteriorating physical and mental health [36, 44]. In studies by Ekman et al. [45, 46] and Runci et al. [4750], it was found that immigrants with a dementia disorder functioned far below their level of latent competence if the interaction was based on the person with dementia’s second language rather than on their native tongue. Studies also show that such patients may be perceived to be more heavily affected by dementia than they are, which can increase the speed of the progression of the disorder due to the person not receiving linguistic inputs that are cognitively challenging [13]. Another issue related to language is thematised in a recent study [44] exploring the relationship between agitation and people with dementia who speak English as their second language. The study showed that speaking English as the second language rather than as the first language was associated with significantly higher agitation level (measured by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory). These findings are in accordance with the findings of our study; health personnel describing how being able to respond to agitated patients in their own language would calm down difficult situations. This was an experience so persistent that multilingual nurses or nurse assistants off duty were called even in the evening or at night to help calm down agitated patients.

According to Norwegian health legislation, Guidance on use of interpreter in health services and Guidelines on dementia care, an interpreter should be used when necessary in order to facilitate communication and secure that important information is shared and understood [51, 52]. However, as found in our study, the use of interpreters in long term care such as in nursing home and home-based care is not common due to financial and practical reasons.

Past and present discontinuities

In general, several earlier studies conclude that for people with minority ethnic backgrounds, admission to care facilities creates many discontinuities in relation to customary lifestyle, daily life patterns, social networks and support. This situation relates not only to the change in physical localization and the process of institutionalization but also to the services being adjusted to the culture of the majority population [35, 39, 53, 54]. Leininger [55] has repeatedly highlighted this point of concern: practicing nursing solely based on the majority culture may cause cultural imposition; that is, practicing nursing in this way may impose cultural (ethnocentric) expressions of care, which would be harmful instead of therapeutic.

Nursing homes have played a pivotal role in Norwegian eldercare for decades and remain today a crucial institution in the care for frail older people. In general, eldercare is widely considered a public domain, and the relative importance of nursing homes in Norway can be illustrated by the fact that 43.3 percent of all deaths occur in nursing home institutions. Thus, native Norwegians are highly familiar with the use of public care institutions [56], in contrast to people with immigrant background still representing a rather young population, and that still not tend to use long term care facilities [2, 13]. In our study health personnel reported that a lack of common language or cultural frame of reference could manifest in difficulties communicating and interacting as well as a feeling (expressed by relatives) that one did not “fit in” or belong in the particular context. Lack of exposure to Norwegian culture and language may be caused by the older person coming to Norway in old age, been taken care of by their relatives for a long time before the decision to use public help was made, or having generally lived a life in close adherence to their own ethnic group’s cultural and religious practises. It may also be explained by the fact that people with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds not only tend to mix languages, have difficulties in distinguishing between languages, or revert to speaking only their native language as the disorder progress, but also may forget the context in which they are living in at the moment [53]. In other words, people with minority ethnic backgrounds living with dementia may believe that they still live in the context in which they were brought up, a socio-cultural environment that may differ substantially from the present context [53]; a situation that may add to their confusion.

An interesting finding in our study was that some of the health personnel with immigrant background themselves perceived to be approached more often by the patients, even if they did not share language or culture; which possibly can be explained by a feeling of affiliation and trust due to a shared minority status. Being in such a minority position can be seen in the light of intersectionality theory [57], postulating that gender, ethnicity and class are social positions expressed simultaneously in producing e.g. inequality in health and health care. It is suggested that this perspective is particularly important in immigrant health research where the acculturation paradigm dominates and where the exploration of how immigrant health trajectories are shaped by gender, social class and ethnicity is often absent [58]. Even though immigrant groups are diverse they often share certain features based on their status as immigrants; lower socio-economic status may create barriers to good health and health care, because they speak different languages they may experience language and health literacy barriers when seeking health care, and they may face discrimination and prejudice upholding their structural position in society [59]. Lack of familiarity with elements of the Norwegian culture and language is likely to be interlinked with ethnicity; level of education; job opportunities and experience; as well as gender roles; thus, creating differences in the possibility of accessing adjusted care. For example, in Norway, only 52 percent among persons with a refugee background are employed compared to 79 percent of the majority population; and immigrant women being less likely to work than men [60].

As illustrated in our study, living in an institution organized according to the frames of the culture, values and norms of the majority population may also cause difficulties in negotiating across religious- or culturally specific themes and values. This may potentially cause discontinuities regarding ethics; preferences and decisions related to the different aspects of treatment and care practises. Additionally, juridical and ethical conflicts concerning important decisions such as end-of-life decision-making may occur and create uncertainty in regard to which value system is to govern; conflicts that have been thematised in several other studies [61, 62]. In other words, receiving care in a context dominated by the majority culture may be challenging for patients and relatives, as it may create several discontinuities not only in daily life patterns and social networks but also in relation to religion and common values.

Culturally congruent caring services

To address such discontinuities one solution could be to develop culturally congruent caring services, described by Leininger as care that are congruent, meaningful, and relevant to individuals and groups representing different cultures [63]. In a research briefing conducted by Moriarty et al. [37], different studies show that minority ethnic groups have different opinions on whether they prefer culturally specific or culturally mixed dementia services. However, even among those preferring “mixed” services, it is important that care is culturally acceptable in the form of food and care practices and that the atmosphere is one where people can feel “at home”. For example, a study on dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England, showed that a shortage of culturally and religiously appropriate services, made the family carers more likely to provide the care themselves [64]. In another study, also based on the Bangladeshi diaspora in England, it was shown that for many of the participants it was vital that the service providers and home carers had the same cultural and religious identity [65]. In Sweden, so-called ethnically profiled dementia care has emerged, and the policy draws on the acknowledgement that person-centred care should integrate people’s different cultural and linguistic background; implying having the opportunity to practice one’s religion, having access to culturally adjusted food, being able to maintain cultural customs and traditions, and being able to communicate with someone who speaks the same mother tongue as the person with dementia [53]. The rationale for ethnically profiled nursing homes derives from the acknowledgement that both language and cultural differences might give rise to specific care needs. Some studies from Sweden suggest that ethno-culturally profiled residential care facilitates the use of nursing homes among people with immigrant backgrounds and dementia. It is suggested that this is because relatives feel less guilty about not fulfilling their duty of filial piety when they can ensure that the older person with dementia is taken care of by someone who speaks the same language and has the same cultural background [22, 41, 66]. However, as argued by Antelius et al. [22], research on dementia among minority ethnic groups is scarce, and the starting point has been an assumption that the “cultural ingredients” are in accordance with the needs and preferences of the different ethnic groups (but have never been tested with the target group). Thus, it is difficult to say to what degree and among what type of group members the different needs have actually been met [22]. This argument was developed further in a Scottish study, where most respondents (health personnel working with patients and relatives from South Asia) concluded that improvement of mainstream service would make the dementia services more accessible and that developing “dozens and dozens of different models to meet the needs of different subgroups” would be challenging [67].

Ethnically profiled nursing homes can be one way of maintaining person-centred care [53], as it could address the discontinuities experienced by people with another linguistic and cultural background. However, as noticed by Torres [68], the risk is that one may (again) be caught in the “otherness” trap by assuming that people sharing certain characteristics have similar needs and preferences and that those preferences represent “challenges” for those delivering the services. Not only may needs, preferences and opportunities differ between people with different religious backgrounds, ages, genders, social classes and the like (compare intersectionality), but ethno-cultural groups cannot be placed within a vacuum that does not change in response to the surrounding society [53, 69]. To what degree and in what direction such changes may occur is difficult to predict, as some patients or relatives may, to a large extent, have acculturated to the host society, while other patients or relatives may see the preservation of an ethno-cultural continuity as particularly important [53]. In a synthesis of qualitative studies on awareness and understanding of dementia among people from South Asia, the author underlines that the South Asian culture and associated religions are complex and varied. Thus, the numerous types of food, religions, languages, education systems, castes, employment statuses, gender rights and social statuses makes it impossible to make any generalizations regarding needs [69]. Similarly, Jutlla [23], based on her research review from the UK on ethnicity and cultural diversity in dementia care, warns about making assumptions based on generalized and stereotyped views from existing research on black and minority ethnic (BME) communities. There are differences both between and within groups and individuals, thus health care workers should practice a person-centred approach in the dementia care of BME people, recognizing the diversity between and within groups [23]. “Cultural competence”, underlined as important by the health personnel in our study, is, according to Jutlla [23], a comprehension of such diversity and is characterized by a value-based perspective that acknowledges individuality. Similarly, as argued by Leininger, in order to provide culturally congruent care health personnel must uncover people’s worldview, religion, family practices and norms, as well as the impact of environmental, political, social and economic factors in people’s life [63]. In other words, factors that may have impact on an individual, social as well as a structural level.

This can be seen in the light of critical voices noticing that “cultural contexts” do not necessarily have to be ethnic but may be based on other types of communities, such as people coming from rural areas, having a particular level of education, belonging to a particular type of social class, or adhering to a specific religion [70]. It can be argued that in pursuing the development of care facilities aiming at adapting to specific ethnic groups may challenge the traditional definition of equality by a definition based on cultural particularity. In line with the theory of intersectionality [57, 58], such a focus may eventually pave the way for specific needs among patient groups with high socioeconomic status while risking that the emphasis on choice of lifestyle may conceal or justify emerging inequalities in care based on social class [70]. Yet another critical input, in line with the views of the respondents in our study, is that existing surveys from Sweden, for example, have not shown any widespread wish to live in ethnically homogenous facilities [70, 71].

Subsequently, even though some studies from Sweden (e.g., 41) do show positive results, that does not necessarily mean that “culture-specific” nursing homes or day care centres are the only or best way of securing quality of life among people with an immigrant or minority ethnic background living with dementia. Independent of how one interprets and values the categories of ethnicity and culture, understanding people’s life histories, experiences of migration, values related to culture and communities, and the possible impacts of those factors seems crucial in aiding patients and relatives to live well with dementia [23]. A biographical approach to needs assessment and care planning, directed at the distinct and individual life stories of the residents and their relatives, could facilitate dementia care where individual as well as socio-cultural needs are addressed [35]. Such an approach has been suggested as a way to bridge cultural differences, given that ethnicity is potentially a category fallacy, which may hinder tailored, person-centred care [72]. However, to be able to access individual as well as socio-cultural needs, time and familiarity seem to be indispensable resources. In a study on communication across linguistically and culturally diverse people with dementia in a residential care setting, the authors particularly underlined the importance of continuity in interpersonal relations [38]. Similar to the findings of our study, accumulation of knowledge about a person’s needs, preferences, behaviour, verbal and non-verbal expressions, and what triggers or prevents agitation, is necessary to establish a common ground, and this common ground is proven to be particularly intricate in relations where one of the participants has dementia [73, 74]. In an exploratory study from Sweden, which included family caregivers and health personnel providing care for people with dementia who had lost their Swedish second language skills, it was found that the family members played a crucial role in establishing such common ground. Through facilitating communication, relatives made it possible for the persons living with dementia to recall memories and mediate specific needs; facilitating access to the cultural activities that they wanted and that the professional caregivers where not able to identify or deliver [27]. Also, health personnel in our study underlined the importance of an even closer collaboration with relatives if the patients with dementia had another linguistic or cultural background. A close relationship with relatives may also prevent misunderstanding and insecurity and facilitate solutions in situations where different value systems confront each other and must adjust. However, relatives are not always present, and many of the patients may not have relatives they can rely on. Thus, to secure that health personnel can provide adjusted and equitable care to a more diverse patient group, institutional constraints also need to be taken into account [75]; such as not being allocated more time or resources (e.g. use of interpreters) when getting to know and assess patients with another cultural and linguistic background.

Strengths and limitations

The initial FGDs with older immigrants from 10 different countries were analyzed in the beginning of the study and served as an inspiration to identify themes and questions in consecutive interviews. We believe this initial familiarity with different ways of articulating and perceiving the phenomenon of dementia and dementia related care served as an important contribution to secure internal validity in the overall study. By triangulating data sources (different healthcare providers, relatives of people with dementia, older immigrants), healthcare settings (e.g., GP centres, nursing homes, day-care centres, home-based services, geriatric and psychiatric polyclinics, and hospital-based memory clinics), locations (different parts of Oslo, and six different counties in the northern, western, and southeast parts of Norway), methods (FGDs and IDIs), and analysts (two researchers reading and analysing all the transcripts), we explored variations and contradictions as well as the consistency of different data sources. The number of participants is rather high to be a qualitative study, and a possible limitation is that we have not managed to provide thorough descriptions of all the different perspectives provided. Even though we had some contact with persons living with dementia through the relatives, we did not include any participants as we were unable to find any person that were able to communicate with us, mainly due to loss of language. This must be considered a weakness as this group of people are the once that have the direct experience of receiving care.

Conclusions and implications

This study shows that there are needs related to language and culture that should be addressed in order to meet the health and care needs of older immigrants with dementia in Norway. These findings are in line with other studies, but there is lack of research on good practices in adapting dementia services to diversity. To meet the challenge of an ageing population and lack of health care personnel, and also increasing employment and integration, the Norwegian authorities have recruited and trained many immigrants to work in nursing homes and home-care services [8]. It seems crucial that the Norwegian health authorities systematically address how this linguistically and culturally diverse workforce can be used as an important resource, potentially reducing problems related to communication as well as the feeling of not belonging for patients with diverse backgrounds. How to best use a diverse workforce could be piloted inspired by existing knowledge and experiences, and play a role in intervention development and evaluation. Several participants among health personnel emphasized the need for “cultural competence” training of staff and in medical and nursing schools. However, focusing on building “cultural competence” risk imposing a generalised understanding of culture on patients [14]. Approaches based on building competencies in relation to ethnicity or culture of origin may overemphasize the cultural dimension of diversity, obscuring the role of gender, education, social class or caste [14]. Thus, to secure adjusted and equitable services health personnel might benefit from considering who is disadvantaged and in need of help to compensate for barriers related to language, ethnicity, gender or socio-economic position. On a structural level, it seems necessary to allocate more time and resources, including the use of interpreters when assessing and getting to know persons with another linguistic and cultural background; preferably formalised during e.g. admission to nursing homes and at regular intervals with the family and/or the patient, if needed.

To meet individual as well as socio-cultural needs and in line with cultural congruent care, a biographical approach, aimed at identifying distinct and individual life stories of the residents and their relatives, may be more fruitful than establishing care institutions or practises aimed at specific ethnic groups. With regard to achieving a biographical approach, most previous research on people with dementia who are bilingual or multilingual underlines the need for residents and staff to have a shared (native) spoken language. Health personnel also need to become familiar with each person’s way of being ill, on both a cultural and an individual level, often expressed through the body language as well through the gradual changes occurring when living with progressive dementia. In other words, continuity in relation to language and culture is important, but continuity of care such as in relations, may be equally important to ensure that people with dementia with an immigrant background receive adjusted and equitable care. Future research should look more into both structures and conditions for- and practical ways of delivering cultural congruent dementia care.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants for sharing their experiences.

Data Availability

The datasets (transcripts) generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to risk of recognizing the participants. Additional quotes and examples, that will support the findings, can be provided upon request to Unit for Migration and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo | Phone: + 47 907 64 709 | www.fhi.no.

Funding Statement

The study was supported by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The financial sponsor played no role in the design, execution, analysis and interpretation of data.

References

  • 1.Statistisk sentralbyrå. Fakta om innvandring [Facts on Immigration, Statistics Norway] https://www.ssb.no/innvandring-og-innvandrere/faktaside/innvandring. Accessed on June, 15, 2020.
  • 2.Tønnessen M, Leknes S, Syse A. Befolkningsframskrivinger 2016–2100. Hovedresultater [Population projections 2016–2100. Main results]. Økonomiske analyser 3/2016, Statistisk sentralbyrå [Economic Analysis 3/2016, Statistics Norway].
  • 3.The Global Alzheimer’s and Dementia Action Alliance (GADAA) website. https://www.gadaalliance.org/. Accessed on February 26, 2019.
  • 4.Livingston G, Sommerlad A, Orgeta V, Costafreda SG, Huntley J, Ames D et al. Dementia prevention, intervention, and care. The Lancet Commissions. Lancet 2017; 390: 2673–734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Norwegian Directorate of Health. Alzheimers og andre demenssykdommer [Alzheimers and Other Dementia-Related Disorders]. https://helsenorge.no/Sykdom/Hjerne-Og-Nerver/Demens/Demenssykdommer. Updated July 6, 2015. Accessed on February 26, 2019.
  • 6.Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Dementia in Norway—Public Health Report. https://www.fhi.no/en/op/public-health-report-2014/health—disease/dementia-in-Norway—public-health-/#How-Much-Will-The-Occurrence-Increase-During-The-Years-To-Come. Updated April 18, 2016. Accessed on February 26, 2019.
  • 7.Folkehelseinstituttet [Norwegian Institute of Public Health]. Demens, Folkehelserapporten [Dementia, Public Health Report] https://www.fhi.no/nettpub/hin/ikke-smittsomme/demens/#mellom-80000-og-100000-har-demens-i-norge-i-dag. Updated May 15, 2018. Accessed on February 26, 2019.
  • 8.Seeberg ML. Immigrant careworkers and Norwegian gender equality: Institutions, identities, intersections. European Journal of Womes’s Studies. 2012; 19(2), 173–185. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Davies AA, Basten A., Frattini C. Migration: A social determinant of the health of migrants. Background paper developed within the framework of the IOM project, “Assisting Migrants and Communities (AMAC): Analysis of social determinants of health and health inequalities”. 2014; Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
  • 10.Baum SK, Boxley RL. Age identification among the elderly. The Gerontologist. 1983; 23, 532–37. 10.2190/nquw-j6rj-8rpc-3b1l [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barrett AE. Socioeconomic status and age identity: The role of dimensions of health in the subjective construction of age. The Journals of Gerontology. 2003; 58(2), 101–9. 10.1093/geronb/58.2.s101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Harper S, Levin S. Family care, independent living and ethnicity. Social Policy and Society. 2005; 4(2): 157–169. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Plejert C, Jansson G, Yazdanpanah M. Response practices in multilingual interaction with an older Persian woman in a Swedish residential home. Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology. 2014; 29(1), 1–23. 10.1007/s10823-013-9217-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Phillimore J, Klaas F, Padilla B, Hernández-Plaza S, Rodrigues V. Adaptation of Health Services to Diversity: An overview of approaches. IRiS Working Paper Series. 2016; No. 15. Institute for Research into Superdiversity, University of Birmingham.
  • 15.Cooper C, Tandy AR, Balamurali TB, Livingston G. A systematic review and metaanalysis of ethnic differences in use of dementia treatment, care and research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010; 18, 193–203. 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181bf9caf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mold F, Fitzpatrick JM, Roberts JD. Minority ethnic elders in care homes: a review of the literature. Age and Ageing. 2005; 34(2), 107–113. 10.1093/ageing/afi009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mukadam N, Cooper C, Livingston G. A systematic review of ethnicity and pathways to care in dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011; 26(1), 12–20. 10.1002/gps.2484 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Diaz E, Kumar BN, Engedal K. Immigrant patients with dementia and memory impairment in primary health care in Norway: A national registry study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2015; 39(5–6). 10.1159/000375526 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McCleary L, Blain J. Cultural values and family caregiving for persons with dementia. Indian Journal of Gerontology. 2013; 27(1), 178–201. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Botsford J, Clarke CL, Gibb CE. Research and dementia, caring and ethnicity: a review of the literature. Journal of Research in Nursing. 2011; 16(5), 437–449. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.MacKenzie J. Stigma and dementia: East European and South Asian family carers negotiating stigma in the UK. Dementia. 2006; 5(2), 233–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Antelius E, Kiwi M. Frankly, none of us know what dementia is: dementia caregiving among Iranian immigrants living in Sweden. Care Management Journals. 2015; 16(2), 79–94. 10.1891/1521-0987.16.2.79 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Jutlla K. Ethnicity and cultural diversity in dementia care: Review of the research. Journal of Dementia Care. 2013; 21, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Uppal G, Bonas S. Constructions of dementia in the South Asian community: A systematic literature review. Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 2014; 17(2), 143–160. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Daker-White G, Beattie AM, Gilliard J, Means R. Minority ethnic groups in dementia care: A review of service needs, service provision and models of good practice. Aging & Mental Health. 2002; 6(2), 101–108. 10.1080/13607860220126835 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gora M, Conner PS. Language disorders in multilingual and multicultural populations. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 2013; 33, 128–161. 10.1017/S026719051300010X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rosendahl SP, Söderman M, Mazaheri M. Immigrants with dementia in Swedish residential care: an exploratory study of the experiences of their family members and Nursing staff. BMC Geriatrics. 2016; 16 (1), 18 10.1186/s12877-016-0200-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lucy JA. Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology. 1997; 26 (1), 291–312. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sagbakken M, Spilker RS, Ingebretsen R. Understanding dementia in ethnically diverse groups: A qualitative study from Norway. Ageing and Society. 2019; 1–24.32863475 [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sagbakken M, Spilker RS, Nielsen TR. Dementia and immigrant groups: a qualitative study of challenges related to identifying, assessing, and diagnosing dementia. BMC Health Services Research. 2018; 18 (1), 910 10.1186/s12913-018-3720-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sagbakken M, Spilker RS, Ingebretsen R. Dementia and migration: Family care patterns merging with public care services. Qualitative Health Research, 2018; 28(1), 16–29. 10.1177/1049732317730818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 3. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ringard Å, Sagan A, Sperre SI, Lindahl AK. Norway: Health System Review. Health Systems in Transition. 2013; 15 (8): 1–162. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kvale S, Brinkmann S. InterViews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd ed SAGE Publications; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lee DT, Woo J, Mackenzie AE. A review of older people’s experiences with residential care placement. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2002; 37(1), 19–27. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02060.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.MacLean MJ, Bonar R. Ethnic elderly people in long-term care facilities of the dominant culture: Implications for social work practice and education. International Social Work. 1986; 29(3), 227–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Moriarty J, Sharif N, Robinson J. Black and minority ethnic people with dementia and their access to support and services. 2011; Research briefing 35. Social Care Institute for Excellence, London, UK.
  • 38.Strandroos L, Antelius E. Interaction and common ground in dementia: Communication across linguistic and cultural diversity in a residential dementia care setting. Health. 2017; 21(5), 538–554. 10.1177/1363459316677626 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.McFarland MR. Use of culture care theory with Anglo-and African American elders in a long-term care setting. Nursing Science Quarterly. 1997; 10(4), 186–192. 10.1177/089431849701000412 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jones DC, Amelsvoort Jones GM. Communication patterns between nursing staff and the ethnic elderly in a long‐term care facility. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 1986; 11(3), 265–272. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1986.tb01247.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Heikkilä K. Sarvimäki A, Ekman S L. Culturally congruent care for older people: Finnish care in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2007; 21(3), 354–361. 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00480.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Erikson E, Erikson JM, Kivnick HQ. Vital Involvement in Old Age: The Experience of Old Age in Our Time. London: W W Norton; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nielsen TR, Andersen BB, Kastrup M, Phung TK, Waldemar G. Quality of diagnostic evaluation of dementia in patients from ethnic minorities: A nationwide study. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. 2011; 31: 388–96. 10.1159/000327362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cooper C., Rapaport P, Robertson S, Marston L, Barber J, Manela M, et al. Relationship between speaking English as a second language and agitation in people with dementia living in care homes: Results from the MARQUE (Managing Agitation and Raising Quality of life) English national care home survey. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018; 33(3), 504–509. 10.1002/gps.4786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ekman SL, Wahlin TB, Norberg A., Winblad B. Relationship between bilingual demented immigrants and bilingual/monolingual caregivers. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 1993; 37, 37–54. 10.2190/NU87-FGP0-CNEU-DCH5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ekman SL, Wahlin TB, Viitanen M, Norberg A, Winblad B. Preconditions for communication in the care of bilingual demented persons. Int Psychogeriatr. 1994; 6(1), 105–120. 10.1017/s1041610294001675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Runci S, Doyle C, Redman J. An empirical test of language relevant interventions for dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 1999; 11(3), 301–311. 10.1017/s1041610299005864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Runci S, O’Connor D, Redman J. Language needs and service provision for older persons from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in southeast Melbourne residential care facilities. Australasian Journal on Ageing. 2005; 24(3), 157–161. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Runci S, Redman J, O’Connor D. Language use of older Italian-background persons with dementia in mainstream and ethnospecific residential care. Int Psychogeriatr. 2005; 17(4), 699–708. 10.1017/S1041610205002309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Runci S, Eppingstall B, O’Connor D. A comparison of verbal communication and psychiatric medication use by Greek and Italian residents with dementia in Australian ethno-specific and mainstream aged care facilities. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012; 24(5), 733–741. 10.1017/S1041610211002134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.NOU 2014: 8 Tolking i offentlig sector- et spørsmål om rettssikkerhet og likeverd [NOU 2014: 8 Interpreting in the public sector–a question relating to the right to due process of law and equal treatment]. The Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. 2014. Accessed on June 16, 2020. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dokumenter/NOU-2014-8/id2001246/
  • 52.Nasjonal faglig retningslinje demens [National guideline dementia]. Norwegian Directorate of Health. 2017. Accessed June 16, 2020. https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/retningslinjer/demens
  • 53.Antelius E, Plejert C. Ethnoculturally-profiled care: Dementia caregiving targeted towards Middle Eastern immigrants living in Sweden. Anthropology and Aging. 2016; 37(1), 9. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Yee DL. Health care access and advocacy for immigrant and other underserved elders. Journal Health Care Poor Underserved. 1991; 2(4), 448–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Leininger M. Becoming aware of types of health practitioners and cultural imposition. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 1991; 2(2), 32–39. 10.1177/104365969100200205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ågotnes, G. (2017). The Institutional Practice: On nursing homes and hospitalizations. Cappelen Damm Akademisk/NOASP (Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing).
  • 57.Collins PH. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Viruell-Fuentes EA, Miranda PY, Abdulrahim S. More than culture: structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Social Science & Medicine. 2012; 75(12), 2099–2106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Prince R. Chapter 3: Aging and Health Among Migrant and Ethnic-Minority groups. In Sagbakken M, Kumar B (Eds.) Dementia, Ethnic Minorities and Migrants. A Review of the Literature. NAKMI. 2017.
  • 60.Innvandrere I arbeidslivet [Immigrants in working life]. Online article. Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi). 2020. Accessed June 29, 2020. https://www.imdi.no/om-integrering-i-norge/kunnskapsoversikt/innvandrere-i-arbeidslivet/
  • 61.Connolly A, Sampson EL, Purandare N. End-of-life care for people with dementia from ethnic minority groups: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60(2), 351–360. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03754.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Koenig BA, Gates-Williams J. Understanding cultural difference in caring for dying patients. West J Med, 1995; 163(3), 244 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Leininger M. Theoretical Questions and Concerns: Response From the Theory of Cultural Care Diversity and Universality Perspective. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2007: 9–15. 10.1177/0894318406296784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Hossain MZ, Khan HTA. Dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England: A qualitative study of the myths and stigmas about dementia. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. 2019; 25: 769–778. 10.1111/jep.13117 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hossain MZ, Khan HTA. (2020). Barriers to access and ways to improve dementia services for a minority ethnic group in England. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. 2020; 1–9. 10.1111/jep.13361 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Kiwi M, Hydén LC, Antelius E. Deciding upon Transition to Residential Care for Persons Living with Dementia: why Do Iranian Family Caregivers Living in Sweden Cease Caregiving at Home? J Cross Cult Gerontol. 2018; 33(1), 21–42. 10.1007/s10823-017-9337-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Bowes A, Wilkinson H. ‘We didn’t know it would get that bad’: South Asian experiences of dementia and the service response. Health Soc Care Community.2003; 11(5), 387–396. 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.00440.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Torres S. Elderly immigrants in Sweden: ‘Otherness’ under construction. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2006; 32(8), 1341–1358. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Hossain MZ, Crossland J, Stores R, Dewey A, Hakak Y. Awareness and understanding of dementia in South Asians: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Dementia. 2020; 19(5), 1441–1473 10.1177/1471301218800641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Jönson H, Harnett T, Nilsson M. Ethnically profiled nursing home care in Sweden–from culture to lifestyle. European Journal of Social Work. 2018; 21(2), 235–246. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Riv ålderstrappan! Livslopp i förändring [Tear down the age ladder! A changed life-course]. Official Report of the Swedish Government. SOU 2002:29.
  • 72.Iliffe S, Manthorpe J. The debate on ethnicity and dementia: from category fallacy to person-centred care? Aging Ment Health. 2004; 8(4), 283–292. 10.1080/13607860410001709656 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Sjögren K, Lindkvist M, Sandman PO, Zingmark K, Edvardsson D. Person-centredness and its association with resident well‐being in dementia care units. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013; 69(10), 2196–2206. 10.1111/jan.12085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Hydén LC, Plejert C, Samulesson C, Örulv L. Feedback and common ground in conversational storytelling involving people with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders. 2013; 4(2), 211. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Debesay J, Harsløf I, Rechel B, Vike H. Facing diversity under institutional constraints: challenging situations for community nurses when providing care to ethnic minority patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2014; 70(9), 2107–2116. 10.1111/jan.12369 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Antony Bayer

28 Apr 2020

PONE-D-20-07935

How to adapt caring services to migration-driven diversity? A qualitative study exploring challenges and possible adjustments in the care of people living with dementia

PLOS ONE

Dear Professor Sagbakken,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. As you will see below, three reviewers have considered it in detail and they have some reservations. Therefore, whilst we feel that it has merit, it does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands.  We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that considers the points raised during the review process.​

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 12 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antony Bayer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of manuscript: How to adapt caring services to migration-driven diversity? A qualitative study exploring challenges and possible adjustments in the care of people living with dementia

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper that deals with and important and timely subject in many European countries. The paper explores challenges and possible adjustments related to receiving and providing public care for people from minority ethnic groups with dementia living in Norway, using a qualitative approach. Further, the authors aim at contributing to a debate on culturally congruent care based on their findings as well as existing research. The main findings are very much in line with existing literature, for instance language and communication barriers are found to be the main challenge for adjusted care and culturally/religious views may affect decisions about palliative care. Based on the results, the authors make an argument that a biographical approach to dement care may be preferable to culturally congruent services and highlight a culturally diverse workforce in mainstream services as an important resource. The authors conclude that continuity in relations are at least as important as continuity in relation to culture and language.

Overall, I find the manuscript to be a very long read. I acknowledge there are no word limit in PLOS ONE, but with approximately 11,500 words and several passages that go into too much detail or discussion, the manuscript should be reduced by at least 2000 words – preferable more - thereby significantly tightening up its focus and descriptions. Also, the authors need to make a stronger point about what contributes or adds to the existing literature. Finally, the manuscript needs a thorough readthrough to check English grammar and remove occasional type-o’s. Based on this, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript in its current form.

Specific comments:

Introduction

General comment: The introduction includes very comprehensive descriptions and discussion of immigration and prevalent dementia in migrants in Norway, barriers in access to dementia care, approaches to culture-sensitive care, and the importance of language barriers. Some of this seem more suited for the discussion section or should preferable be significantly condensed.

Page 2

In the first paragraph, please use either “percent” of “%” for consistence.

In the second paragraph, dementia is referred to as a disease. This is not correct and should be changed to disorder or a similar term.

In the second paragraph, 3 lines from the bottom, “doctors” should be “medical doctors”.

Page 3

In the last paragraph, it is stated that patients “lack ability to use services”. This may unintentionally come out a bit ethnocentric, and this whole section seem to miss appoint about no culture-sensitive services being available. Could it be, that available services do not correspond to the needs of the patients, i.e. they “lack ability to provide services”?

Page 5

Is the second aim really of the study an aim or is it rather a discussion of the implications of the findings? It seems that culturally congruent services fit well under the first aim (possible adjustments to services). Please consider taking out this aim and discussing it as an implication of the findings instead.

Methods and sample strategy

General comments: The descriptions and details of this section are very comprehensive. I strongly suggest tightening up and condensing these descriptions, and preferably collapsing some of the many subsections.

Page 7

The whole section called “Design” seems a bit unconventional. Not only does it not cover the design of this qualitative study, i.e. Grounded Theory, Phenomenological, etc. or other details relevant to the design of this particular study, including the adherence to standard guidelines for qualitative research (SRQR or COREQ), which is required in PLOS ONE. It also lists the results of previous papers originating from the research programme that the study is part of. I strongly suggest removing this section and describing the study design in other parts of the Methods section. Also, all details about the previous papers from the research programme should be deleted and simply referred to by their references.

Page 8

I can be hard to get an overview of the participants in the different FGDs, DYIs and IDIs. Would it be possible to present the participant characteristics in one or two tables?

Page 10

In the section “Research team”, it is sufficient to specify the academic background of the researchers. Their employments will be irrelevant to most readers.

In the last line, the word “translator” should be “interpreter”.

Page 12

In the first paragraph, there is again reference to methods used in other articles from the research programme that seem irrelevant to the present study. Please delete this.

Also, a new aim is suddenly introduced here that was not described under aims in the introduction: to inform policy makers. Either include this as an aim of the study in the introduction or delete it entirely.

Page 13

Here you present a table that has no number and is not referred to in the text. Please add a Table heading and number and refer to in in the text.

In the Validity section, the final paragraph can be understood in the way that a high number of participants is a limitation in qualitative research? Please consider rephrasing.

Results

General comments: This section is also very long and covers several themes included in just four subsections. As a reader it can be hard to follow the red line in the subsections and I would suggest tightening up this section and adding additional subsection to the existing subsection to denote the individual themes identified.

Discussion

General comments: I can’t help but feel a that short discussion of the general lack culture-sensitive services in Norway is lacking in the discussion. I understand the authors would like to make an argument that a biographical/person-centered approach to dement care may be preferable to culturally congruent services, but I do no think this is entirely supported by the findings. One approach does not necessarily rule out the other. It may very well be that some service users may prefer culturally profiled services while others will not (which you also find). So maybe both options should be available? Also, it may be important to consider the results in light of the recruited informants. Could it be that older immigrants and relatives to people with dementia who a open to participating in this research would also be more open to mainstream services? Please add a limitation section where you discuss the limitations of the study, including the generalizability of the results.

Also, there is a lot of text explaining the findings from other studies. Could this possibly be condensed and shortened down.

Page 25

In line 2, it is mentioned that the study found challenges that appear challenging to patients. But the views of patients were not included in this study. Please also add this as a limitation.

Conclusion and Implications

Although it intuitively makes sense, the final remark about the importance of continuity on relations and not only language and culture does not seem to be supported by the results of the present study. This conclusion mainly rests on the results of other studies.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting article, however I was not entirely sure what the conclusions were and how services should be shaped to better care for people with dementia from minority ethnic communities. I was surprised to find the persistent ‘othering’ of ‘immigrants’ throughout the article. ‘Immigrants’ (I am not convinced that this is the correct term) were portrayed against an assumed homogenised group of ‘native’ Norwegians without much qualification and demographic analysis. Even though, the literature quoted on immigrant health experiences is extensive, there was limited engagement with the literature on transcultural care, cross-cultural psychiatry and medical anthropology which could frame some of the issues raised. Furthermore, contrary to the article’s title and aims, there was limited to contribution to the field of health service design and no well thought out proposals for new services are presented at the end. Also, the recommendations on possible adjustments were assessed for feasibility and scalability. Finally, there appears to be some overlap with materials that have already been published elsewhere (BMC Health Services Research). The team is very knowledgeable and this is a very interesting and much-needed study but I would recommend further work on this paper.

Please see some suggestions below:

Introduction

1.The word ‘immigrants’ is used throughout without any qualification. I am not convinced this is the right term to use, certainly without offering justification.

2. Even though, there is a mention of diversity within the ‘immigrant’ category, the discourse used is ‘othering’ this group against an assumingly homogenous ‘native’ population. Is there any evidence that Norwegians for example are not expected to care for their elderly parents?

3. The literature review in the Introduction is extensive but is using very broad generalisations throughout. I would recommend specifying the ethnicity of the patients you are referring to and their country of residence when mentioning specific examples.

4. Similarly, the concept of ‘filial piety’ is mentioned as an exotic ‘other’. You explain a bit more about in your BMC paper but in this paper it is left uncontextualised. Are there no similar phrases in the Norwegian language? Was this concept explicitly mentioned by the participants in this study? What terms did people use?

Design

Good summary of previously published work.

Methods and sample strategy

It would be helpful to add some more information on how you recruited participants, our inclusion criteria and what strategies did you use to eliminate bias.

Analysis

You could add more info on analysis. Why did you choose the Kvale and Brinkman’s descriptions of levels of interpretation? What did you learn by using it?

Results

Receiving care in unfamiliar settings and surroundings

How many participants mentioned this? Can you provide more details about their background or circumstances to contextualise the quotes?

What type of ‘integration’ is needed in a care home? What does this mean? Add more details. Do you mean taking part in activities?

When the ‘immigrants’ were younger and worked, they operated in diverse workplaces, schools etc. They are presented like they are aliens who did not contribute to Norway’s economy and society. Is this the intention?

Also, was the relatives’ involvement only problematic? They provided free care and free-up professionals time.

Providing and receiving care in unfamiliar languages

Budget restraints are mentioned but google translate is free. Please add more context regarding what type of translations are allowed. Also, we know that non-verbal communication is very important in dementia care. Did noone mention anything about using non-verbal communication to overcome linguistic barriers?

Views on culturally profiled caring services

Xenophobia among other care home residents hinted here but not elaborated. Did you have any more evidence that care homes are hostile environments towards people from minority ethnic backgrounds?

You make some suggestions are offered on making the care homes more welcoming places but the data is very limited. Do you have more data to expand this paragraph and the one below on competence needs? My understanding from the title and abstract was these two sections would be key.

Competence needs

Is the same as the para above? Or does it need to be a separate section?

Discussion

The emphasis appears to be on individuals, not on the sociocultural context in which these individuals are embedded in. Assumptions like ‘lack of exposure to Norwegian culture’ are not contextualised. I’d like to see more analysis on whether this apparent lack of exposure is a result of dementia and loss of recent memories and if not, some analysis on the context that produced this ‘lack of exposure’.

There was no discussion on how participant ethnic background, occupation or gender shaped opinions.

Conclusions and Implications

I’d like to see more focus on how to apply findings from this study on service design.

Reviewer #3: Comments to the authors:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The topic of dementia among the ethnic minority community in Norway is an important one where of course more research is needed. This is an interesting paper; however, the article cannot be published in this current form. More works need to be done in order to strengthen the paper. Such as:

Authors need to update the references: I have noticed references were used from the years of 1983, 1986, 1991, these references are very old, not helpful to be honest. I have also noticed some papers were cited from the authors Jutlla, MacKenzie, Uppal etc. But it would be good if you could update most recent publications in your references. Please try to include citations to the papers of authors in your immediate field that have been published very recently, year 2020. A list might be useful:

• Hossain, M.Z., Stores, R., Hakak, Y., Dewey, A. (2020). Traditional gender roles and effects of the dementia caregiving within a South Asian ethnic group in England. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. doi: 10.1159/000506363

• Hossain, M.Z., Stores, R., Hakak, D., Crossland, J., & Dewey, A. (2020). Dementia knowledge and attitudes of the general public among the Bangladeshi community in England: a focus group study. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. doi: 10.1159/000506123

• Hossain, M.Z., Khan, H.T.A. (2020). Barriers to access and ways to improve dementia services for a minority ethnic group in England. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13361

• Hossain, M.Z., & Khan, H. T. A. (2019). Dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England: A qualitative study of the myths and stigmas about dementia. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

• Hossain, M.Z., Crossland, J., Stores, R., Dewey, A., & Hakak, Y. (2018). Awareness and understanding of dementia in South Asians: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Dementia.

# The authors mentioned about immigrant backgrounds of living with dementia in Norway many times. I was disappointed to see more details about the immigrants' background. As a reader, I would like to see what their backgrounds were, what are their religions (most important thing) etc. Probably, a demographic table would be more interesting to see.

# Abstract: an extra space added before the full stop of the first sentence

# First sentence of page number 3 is vague, not clear. Please re-write it, breaking down it would make more sense, I think.

# On page 3, However, many older immigrants come from societies where family structures and expectations of care from family members are stronger than in many Western societies (10, 11).

Sentences like this are not helpful, too general, can you give any example?

# Page 3, Ethnic differences in the use of dementia care services have been documented in Norway and internationally. Needed a reference for this statement

# Page 5, The authors underline that the cultural dimension is important to address since specific aspects of culture, such as religion, traditional customs and food, are important needs that can persist into the dementia process.

I'm not quite sure about this sentence, however, religion may or may not be the part of a culture, it's debatable, perhaps a clarification was needed?

# Page 7, I agree with the authors on this statement: Women in particular, might feel obliged to conform to a traditional caregiver role, but without the support from a wider extended family, and in the context of other pressing roles and duties.

I feel a reference is needed with this above sentence and there is a recent paper on the ethnic minority's traditional gender role caring issues: please see below, might be useful:

• Hossain, M.Z., Stores, R., Hakak, Y., Dewey, A. (2020). Traditional gender roles and effects of the dementia caregiving within a South Asian ethnic group in England. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. doi: 10.1159/000506363

# Page 10, The research team: I am not sure about how putting all the research team's bio-data, education details and academic positions would be helpful to the readers. I rather feel too much personal information have been included there.

# Page 11, a semi-structure guide was used: How did you develop a semi-structure guide, based on what information or studies did you prepare your interview questions?

# Previous studies elsewhere found that for Muslim carers or people with dementia religion play a big part.... what about their religion, presumably, some of these participants were Muslims and Islam put a great concern about care giving and receiving? Such as

# Details needed about who interviewed the female Muslim participants, there was an issue of interviewing Muslim women found in the literature, you may need to consult with the article where the male author could not interview the female carers: Hossain, M. Z., & Khan, H. T. A. (2019). Dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England: A qualitative study of the myths and stigmas about dementia. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

# Discussion needs to be tightened up:

# Perhaps, need to create a section for Recommendation for research & policy: Research is beneficial for any community, what would be the recommendation for the future research and policy makers; perhaps how can this research be useful for ethnic minority community in Norway?

# Limitation & Conclusion: a separate limitation and conclusion would be useful for the readers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: T. Rune Nielsen

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Dec 22;15(12):e0243803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243803.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Sep 2020

Dear Editor,

Below are the responses listed according to the different reviewers input. In the manuscript the changes are marked in either red or trough track changes: In areas were the text/content are radically rewritten (including text being removed or added) the text is marked in red. In areas where we only have removed content/passages this can be seen through track changes.

We do hope that the revisions made will make the manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Best regards Mette Sagbakken, corresponding author

Reviewer #1: Review of manuscript: How to adapt caring services to migration-driven diversity? A qualitative study exploring challenges and possible adjustments in the care of people living with dementia

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper that deals with and important and timely subject in many European countries. The paper explores challenges and possible adjustments related to receiving and providing public care for people from minority ethnic groups with dementia living in Norway, using a qualitative approach. Further, the authors aim at contributing to a debate on culturally congruent care based on their findings as well as existing research. The main findings are very much in line with existing literature, for instance language and communication barriers are found to be the main challenge for adjusted care and culturally/religious views may affect decisions about palliative care. Based on the results, the authors make an argument that a biographical approach to dement care may be preferable to culturally congruent services and highlight a culturally diverse workforce in mainstream services as an important resource. The authors conclude that continuity in relations are at least as important as continuity in relation to culture and language.

Overall, I find the manuscript to be a very long read. I acknowledge there are no word limit in PLOS ONE, but with approximately 11,500 words and several passages that go into too much detail or discussion, the manuscript should be reduced by at least 2000 words – preferable more - thereby significantly tightening up its focus and descriptions. Also, the authors need to make a stronger point about what contributes or adds to the existing literature. Finally, the manuscript needs a thorough read through to check English grammar and remove occasional type-o’s. Based on this, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript in its current form.

General comments: The manuscript is long, and thus one of the reasons we chose PLOS ONE, having no word limit. We have condensed certain parts of the introduction, parts of the results as well as the discussion. However, the two other reviewers have asked us to add content several places, as well as more empirical and theoretical references, and the length of the manuscript is therefore approximately the same after the revision.

Regarding contribution to existing literature: throughout the discussion we have tried to make it clearer how our findings contribute and support existing literature. One of the main reasons, however, for doing this research, is that it was commissioned and financed by the Norwegian Directorate of Health, as research on this group of people/patients living in Norway was almost nonexistent at the time. The Directorate wanted research to be carried out for better health service planning adjusting to the needs of a growing group of older immigrants in Norway; thus the main rationale and the main contribution was to explore the experiences in the Norwegian context in particular.

Our manuscript is language edited by Wiley Editing Services (see attachment) and we have gone through the manuscript again; editing some minor errors.

Specific comments:

Introduction

General comment: The introduction includes very comprehensive descriptions and discussion of immigration and prevalent dementia in migrants in Norway, barriers in access to dementia care, approaches to culture-sensitive care, and the importance of language barriers. Some of this seem more suited for the discussion section or should preferable be significantly condensed.

Author: We have shortened parts of the introduction and moved some of the content to the discussion part.

Page 2

In the first paragraph, please use either “percent” of “%” for consistence.

In the second paragraph, dementia is referred to as a disease. This is not correct and should be changed to disorder or a similar term.

Author: this had been corrected.

In the second paragraph, 3 lines from the bottom, “doctors” should be “medical doctors”.

Author: this had been corrected.

Page 3

In the last paragraph, it is stated that patients “lack ability to use services”. This may unintentionally come out a bit ethnocentric, and this whole section seem to miss appoint about no culture-sensitive services being available. Could it be, that available services do not correspond to the needs of the patients, i.e. they “lack ability to provide services”?

Author: In page 3, we have already addressed this dimension, by the sentence: “However, current care services are undoubtable designed for a more homogenous group of people, and it is argued that this poses challenges to equitable services” (14).

We have however removed this part of the sentence (ability to use services) and added yet another sentence where we emphasize that one of the causes of services not being used is lack of ability to adjust services to different patient groups.

Page 5

Is the second aim really of the study an aim or is it rather a discussion of the implications of the findings? It seems that culturally congruent services fit well under the first aim (possible adjustments to services). Please consider taking out this aim and discussing it as an implication of the findings instead.

Author: We agree that this second aim could be seen as an implication of the findings and have thus removed it from this paragraph.

Methods and sample strategy

General comments: The descriptions and details of this section are very comprehensive. I strongly suggest tightening up and condensing these descriptions, and preferably collapsing some of the many subsections.

Author: We have shortened down/rewritten the methods chapter by addressing the below comments. However, one of the reviewers wanted us to add more information about the overall design as well as the sample strategy, thus some information is also added.

Page 7

The whole section called “Design” seems a bit unconventional. Not only does it not cover the design of this qualitative study, i.e. Grounded Theory, Phenomenological, etc. or other details relevant to the design of this particular study, including the adherence to standard guidelines for qualitative research (SRQR or COREQ), which is required in PLOS ONE. It also lists the results of previous papers originating from the research programme that the study is part of. I strongly suggest removing this section and describing the study design in other parts of the Methods section. Also, all details about the previous papers from the research programme should be deleted and simply referred to by their references.

Author: We have shortened and made changes to the description of the design/methods and included a description of methodology underpinning the research.

It is quite common and often requested to briefly present results from other papers that are part of larger studies; to allow transparency and to help the reader to get an overall view of the results and how they complement each other. The presentation of the results was in this review appreciated by the second reviewer. To be able to respond to the different views of reviewer one and two we have therefore chosen to shorten the description of the result, by only referring to the topic addressed in the separate papers.

Page 8

I can be hard to get an overview of the participants in the different FGDs, DYIs and IDIs. Would it be possible to present the participant characteristics in one or two tables?

Author: We have structured (by the use of headlines) and condensed the information about the participants to make it more accessible.

Page 10

In the section “Research team”, it is sufficient to specify the academic background of the researchers. Their employments will be irrelevant to most readers.

In the last line, the word “translator” should be “interpreter”.

Author: We have limited the information about the researchers in this section. In the last line the word translator is replaced.

Page 12

In the first paragraph, there is again reference to methods used in other articles from the research programme that seem irrelevant to the present study. Please delete this.

Also, a new aim is suddenly introduced here that was not described under aims in the introduction: to inform policy makers. Either include this as an aim of the study in the introduction or delete it entirely.

Author: We have deleted the part where we refer to methodological/theoretical consideration done in the other papers. We have also deleted what may be interpreted as a new aim (inform policy makers). We have left the description of the initial FGDs with older immigrants, as these data served as an important inspiration for identifying themes and questions in consecutive interviews (IDIs and FGDs), and helped contextualize data in the following interviews; thus being a part of the analytical process.

Page 13

Here you present a table that has no number and is not referred to in the text. Please add a Table heading and number and refer to in in the text.

In the Validity section, the final paragraph can be understood in the way that a high number of participants is a limitation in qualitative research? Please consider rephrasing.

Author: We have added a table heading and number. Regarding the description of validity, this is a well-known concern, as the analysis in most qualitative research is concerned about analyzing and presenting data in depth, including contextual information/details. We have tried to rephrase this to make this point clearer. However, this part is now moved to the end of the discussion, called “Strength and limitations”.

Results

General comments: This section is also very long and covers several themes included in just four subsections. As a reader it can be hard to follow the red line in the subsections and I would suggest tightening up this section and adding additional subsection to the existing subsection to denote the individual themes identified.

Author: It is a bit difficult to relate to comments pointed to the manuscript being too long/passages/section being too long without the reviewer having any suggestions on where to cut. We have tried to tight it up but have also added some data (the need for continuity) due to the concern of one of the other reviewers. We have added some additional subsections to split some of the themes.

Discussion

General comments: I can’t help but feel a that short discussion of the general lack culture-sensitive services in Norway is lacking in the discussion. I understand the authors would like to make an argument that a biographical/person-centered approach to dement care may be preferable to culturally congruent services, but I do not think this is entirely supported by the findings. One approach does not necessarily rule out the other. It may very well be that some service users may prefer culturally profiled services while others will not (which you also find). So maybe both options should be available? Also, it may be important to consider the results in light of the recruited informants. Could it be that older immigrants and relatives to people with dementia who a open to participating in this research would also be more open to mainstream services? Please add a limitation section where you discuss the limitations of the study, including the generalizability of the results.

Also, there is a lot of text explaining the findings from other studies. Could this possibly be condensed and shortened down.

Author: We have condensed some of the findings from other studies in the discussion. We have added a Strength and limitation section at the end of the paper, where we address different strengths and limitations. Since we added groups of immigrants (9 focus groups) that were recruited to talk about health services for older immigrants – irrespective of having relatives with dementia/using existing services (in addition to the other participants with more direct experience) – we believe we have captured the essence of opinions of a large and varied part of the immigrant population. In the findings section there are also examples of participants that favored services having a cultural profile; we are referring to that of a majority of participants not having such preferences, not everyone. Therefore, we do not see the need to address this as a limitation.

We have tried to make the discussion more nuanced in regard to the positive aspects of facilitating culturally congruent services.

Page 25

In line 2, it is mentioned that the study found challenges that appear challenging to patients. But the views of patients were not included in this study. Please also add this as a limitation.

Author: We have added this in the limitation part.

Conclusion and Implications

Although it intuitively makes sense, the final remark about the importance of continuity on relations and not only language and culture does not seem to be supported by the results of the present study. This conclusion mainly rests on the results of other studies.

Thank you for this important input. The need of continuity does not rest on the results of other studies. All participants frequently thematised this; both indirectly and directly. However, we see now that this needs to be emphasized more in the results and have included more data/focus on this in the results. The conclusion/suggestions is thus directly based on the empirical findings, supported by other studies.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting article, however I was not entirely sure what the conclusions were and how services should be shaped to better care for people with dementia from minority ethnic communities. I was surprised to find the persistent ‘othering’ of ‘immigrants’ throughout the article. ‘Immigrants’ (I am not convinced that this is the correct term) were portrayed against an assumed homogenised group of ‘native’ Norwegians without much qualification and demographic analysis. Even though, the literature quoted on immigrant health experiences is extensive, there was limited engagement with the literature on transcultural care, cross-cultural psychiatry and medical anthropology which could frame some of the issues raised. Furthermore, contrary to the article’s title and aims, there was limited to contribution to the field of health service design and no well thought out proposals for new services are presented at the end. Also, the recommendations on possible adjustments were assessed for feasibility and scalability. Finally, there appears to be some overlap with materials that have already been published elsewhere (BMC Health Services Research). The team is very knowledgeable and this is a very interesting and much-needed study but I would recommend further work on this paper.

Author: General comments on the literature:

The articles we refer to in the manuscript are the result of a thorough literature review conducted (ordered by the Norwegian Directorate of Health), and even though we might have included even more studies (with different types of perspectives) we believe that the references are quite extensive. Since one of the reviewers have suggested 5 concrete articles he wants us to add, and the other reviewer wants us to cut and condense the paper, we have chosen not to not add further references.

We do however refer to transcultural care through Leninger’s well-known work, and we have – based on your input – chosen to elaborate more on her particular work in the discussion part.

Regarding overlap: we have removed one part of the results (about relatives involving/moving in to nursing homes to participate in intimate care of their relatives) based on your input on this section being overlapping.

The rest of the comments addressed above, will be answered below:

Please see some suggestions below:

Introduction

1.The word ‘immigrants’ is used throughout without any qualification. I am not convinced this is the right term to use, certainly without offering justification.

Author: In this paper, we use “minority ethnic groups” when we refer to studies from outside Scandinavia, as this is the most commonly used term in these papers. However, in the parts of the manuscript where we refer to Norwegian statistics, Norwegian/ Scandinavian studies, and the present project, we use the term “Immigrant”, which is the terminology used by Statistics Norway, and is the most commonly used term in academic and public discourse. Importantly, the use of “Immigrant” also indicates that we are not referring to our native population, such as the Saami’s. This information is now added in page 6.

2. Even though, there is a mention of diversity within the ‘immigrant’ category, the discourse used is ‘othering’ this group against an assumingly homogenous ‘native’ population. Is there any evidence that Norwegians for example are not expected to care for their elderly parents?

Author: As emphasized in page 3, we do underline that “Immigrants’ experiences of aging and health are diverse as they belong to different socio-economic, ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups and have varying levels of education and work experience. Further, they have various reasons for migrating, and have lived in Norway for different lengths of time (9). Family structures and relationships are diverse both within and between different immigrant groups. However, many older immigrants come from societies where family structures and expectations of care from family members are stronger than in Western societies (10, 11).” We have also emphasized this point more in the discussion.

To be able to understand the institutional practice in Norway in a better way we have also added relevant information about this in the discussion part (condensed version of the following text), page 28-29.

In general, nursing homes have played a pivotal role in Norwegian eldercare for decades, and remain today an exceptionally important institution in regards to care for the elderly. In general, elderly care is widely considered a public domain, and the relative importance of e.g. nursing homes in Norway can be illustrated by the fact that 43.3 percent of all deaths occur in nursing home institutions. Thus, native Norwegians are highly familiar with the use of public care institutions, in contrast to people with immigrant background still representing a rather young population. The particular topography and geography of Norway should also be taken into account when considering the importance of nursing homes. Norway is relatively sparsely populated over a large (relative to number of inhabitants) geographical area, has few large cities (most of which serve as regional centers), and has a topography and infrastructure making traveling long distances a challenge in many parts of the country. Many Norwegians therefore live far from hospitals and other parts of the specialized health service, both in distance and in travel time, giving the nursing homes a vital local function, as well as being a significant local employer. In 2009 the total number of care recipients in long-term beds in Norwegian nursing homes was 34 800. This figure amounts to almost 1 percent of the total population, far more than any comparable country. Many elderly Norwegians live in nursing homes and the majority of these elderly also die in the nursing homes. Among residents occupying what is labelled a ≪long-term bed≫, it is estimated that 95 percent die while residing in the institutions (Ågotnes, G. (2017). The Institutional Practice: On nursing homes and hospitalizations. Cappelen Damm Akademisk/NOASP (Nordic Open Access Scholarly Publishing).

3. The literature review in the Introduction is extensive but is using very broad generalisations throughout. I would recommend specifying the ethnicity of the patients you are referring to and their country of residence when mentioning specific examples.

Author: the reason why there seem to be rather broad generalizations in the introduction is that we rely mainly on review articles that summarize patterns in barriers experienced by people with another linguistic or cultural background. In the introduction reference nr 15-17, 19-20, 23-26 are all narrative or systematics reviews. When referring to primary studies we are specifying which ethnic groups that are in focus.

4. Similarly, the concept of ‘filial piety’ is mentioned as an exotic ‘other’. You explain a bit more about in your BMC paper but in this paper it is left uncontextualised. Are there no similar phrases in the Norwegian language? Was this concept explicitly mentioned by the participants in this study? What terms did people use?

Author: the concept of filial piety is used in the introduction as a frame (also based on review articles) to explain different types of caring patterns. There are no similar phrases in the Norwegian language and since filial piety is a theoretical concept, the respondents did not use this word. However, the concept is suited to explain feelings of commitment, reciprocity and other descriptions used by the participants when describing how and why they felt that they needed to provide care for their family members. We have added information about the common and accepted use of institutional care for older people in Norway in the discussion part, which is rather exceptional even when compared to Scandinavian countries.

Design

Good summary of previously published work.

Methods and sample strategy

It would be helpful to add some more information on how you recruited participants, our inclusion criteria and what strategies did you use to eliminate bias.

Author: During the process of recruitment, we found it very difficult to find relatives as well as health personnel who had direct experience with caring for patients living with dementia representing another linguistic and cultural background (see reference 2, 13). Thus, as now explained clearer in the text, we had to rely on a convenience sampling, were snowballing within already existing network and within local care services was one of the strategies. We have elaborated more on each of the sampling processes under “Sampling strategy.”

Regarding bias: We used extensive time and resources to find enough – and different participants to participate in this study; at a later stage also involving many different geographical parts of this long-stretched country. Bias was reduced by triangulating data sources (healthcare providers, relatives of people with dementia, older immigrants); locations (different parts of Oslo, and six different counties in the northern, western, and southeast parts of Norway); healthcare settings (e.g., GP centres, nursing homes, day-care centres, home-based services, geriatric and psychiatric polyclinics, and hospital-based memory clinics); methods (FGDs and IDIs); and analysts (two researchers reading and analyzing all the transcripts). Within and across all these data sources, we explored variations and contradictions as well as the consistency of different data sources.

Analysis

You could add more info on analysis. Why did you choose the Kvale and Brinkman’s descriptions of levels of interpretation? What did you learn by using it?

Author: One of the reviewers suggested condensing this part. However, we have added a short explanation of the main function of moving between different interpretational contexts under “Analysis”: These three interpretational contexts derive from different explications of the researcher’s perspective and lead to different levels of analysis, and serve to make explicit the analytic questions posed to a statement.

Results

Receiving care in unfamiliar settings and surroundings

How many participants mentioned this? Can you provide more details about their background or circumstances to contextualise the quotes?

Receiving care in unfamiliar settings is a headline that covers several aspects that was, in different ways, mentioned by a large group of respondents. We have tried to contextualize this part of the results in a better way and have rewritten large parts of this particular section.

We have chosen not to provide more details about the participant’s background as it is few people with immigrant background living with dementia in Norway, and relatives as well as health personnel working in this particular field may easily be recognized. As an example, in one of our previous articles one of the reviewers paid attention to the fact that he thought he knew the identity of one of the participants among the doctors; this based on his well-known opinions/experiences expressed in a quote in the paper.

What type of ‘integration’ is needed in a care home? What does this mean? Add more details. Do you mean taking part in activities?

Author: Thank you for this input. We have rewritten this part and angled it without too much focus on integration; rather that of being in unfamiliar surroundings due to exposure to the majority culture only.

When the ‘immigrants’ were younger and worked, they operated in diverse workplaces, schools etc. They are presented like they are aliens who did not contribute to Norway’s economy and society. Is this the intention?

Author: No, this is not the intention, and we have added more context to bring forward the content in a better way. See among other page 30.

Also, was the relatives’ involvement only problematic? They provided free care and free-up professionals time.

Author: No, this was of course not only problematic. The section where we present results related to relatives engaging in the (intimate) care is removed, as it partly overlaps with the article published in Qualitative Health Research. The section where we present findings related to differences in the view of care practices (related to later stages/terminal care) is instead elaborated, as it illustrates how different religious views and/or care practices may conflict ethically as well as legally.

Providing and receiving care in unfamiliar languages

Budget restraints are mentioned but google translate is free. Please add more context regarding what type of translations are allowed.

Author: We have already mentioned that health personnel used google translate as well as personal with corresponding language competencies as strategies in their daily work in the result chapter. This is marked in the text. Since we mainly talk about long-term care, using qualified interpreters was not/is not common in the daily care due to financial and practical reasons. We have added some more information about this in the discussion part, page 28.

Also, we know that non-verbal communication is very important in dementia care. Did noone mention anything about using non-verbal communication to overcome linguistic barriers?

Author: thank you for this important input. Yes, there was several examples of health personnel talking about body language. This was related to the importance of continuity in care; where the emphasize was on how continuity was important to get to know the patients, including their body language, over time. We have added some of these quotes in the results chapter.

Views on culturally profiled caring services

Xenophobia among other care home residents hinted here but not elaborated. Did you have any more evidence that care homes are hostile environments towards people from minority ethnic backgrounds?

Author: It was only one participant that mentioned this directly. Even if she was the only one, we included this quote as it might represent the experience of others. We have also addressed this indirectly in the first paragraphs (now rewritten) where we point to how the surroundings may feel alienating due to an exposure (songs, food, music, TV programs) to the majority culture only.

You make some suggestions are offered on making the care homes more welcoming places but the data is very limited. Do you have more data to expand this paragraph and the one below on competence needs? My understanding from the title and abstract was these two sections would be key.

Author: We have added more in the paragraph now called “lack of continuity of care”, which refers to the importance of getting to know people and their individual preferences and clinical changes to facilitate a more homely and safe environment. We also make the need for familiar environment a stronger point in the beginning of the discussion part.

Competence needs

Is the same as the para above? Or does it need to be a separate section?

Author: we have chosen to bring the last two sections together, as reviewer one wants us to condense the discussion, and as pointed to by you – these topics can be presented together.

Discussion

The emphasis appears to be on individuals, not on the sociocultural context in which these individuals are embedded in. Assumptions like ‘lack of exposure to Norwegian culture’ are not contextualised. I’d like to see more analysis on whether this apparent lack of exposure is a result of dementia and loss of recent memories and if not, some analysis on the context that produced this ‘lack of exposure’.

Author: We have elaborated more on this in the discussion part, and we have also rewritten part of this to make the content clearer. See page 29.

There was no discussion on how participant ethnic background, occupation or gender shaped opinions.

Author: We did not see any clear pattern related to a particular ethnic background; and occupation and religion was not asked for but came up when relevant (religion in particular) during the interviews/FGD. This study did not seek to examine and compare different groups’ experiences. Rather – through variation in the sample; e.g. participants from more than 18 countries, representing different “positions” (older immigrants, relatives to persons with dementia, different health personnel) in regards to the topic being explored – we have sought to identify variations and similarities; including patterns of consistency trough different data sources. However, we do discuss how ethnic background, occupation or gender may shape peoples experiences and opinions by the use of the theoretical perspective of intersectionality; and trough that we emphasize that the interplay or “sum” of many different positions is likely to be more important than the different factors such as gender, age, education and ethnicity alone.

Conclusions and Implications

I’d like to see more focus on how to apply findings from this study on service design.

Author: Our study has not focused on service design per se; it has focused on how it is possible to adjust public care in relation to people living with dementia with another linguistic or cultural background. In this part of the study, we have focused on both day care centers, homebased services, and nursing homes (as well as GP centres, geriatric and psychiatric polyclinics, hospital-based memory clinics in the articles already published) – all with quite different services and focus. Thus, we have no ambition to suggest different health services design regarding all these different treatment and care institutions, but rather provide an insight into different experiences and views represented by different/relevant actors on how services can be adapted in a better way.

Our conclusion is also drawn on the basis that we did not see any clear patterns in needs that would justify a specific service design, but rather there is need to become familiar with each individual and their specific and often changing needs due to progressive dementia. Further, due to people in this group having another linguistic background (and often lose their second language first) it is important to invest in linguistic and cultural diversity among the health workers. We have rewritten the conclusion to emphasize the main point in a better way.

Reviewer #3: Comments to the authors:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The topic of dementia among the ethnic minority community in Norway is an important one where of course more research is needed. This is an interesting paper; however, the article cannot be published in this current form. More works need to be done in order to strengthen the paper. Such as:

Authors need to update the references: I have noticed references were used from the years of 1983, 1986, 1991, these references are very old, not helpful to be honest. I have also noticed some papers were cited from the authors Jutlla, MacKenzie, Uppal etc. But it would be good if you could update most recent publications in your references. Please try to include citations to the papers of authors in your immediate field that have been published very recently, year 2020. A list might be useful:

• Hossain, M.Z., Stores, R., Hakak, Y., Dewey, A. (2020). Traditional gender roles and effects of the dementia caregiving within a South Asian ethnic group in England. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. doi: 10.1159/000506363

• Hossain, M.Z., Stores, R., Hakak, D., Crossland, J., & Dewey, A. (2020). Dementia knowledge and attitudes of the general public among the Bangladeshi community in England: a focus group study. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. doi: 10.1159/000506123

• Hossain, M.Z., Khan, H.T.A. (2020). Barriers to access and ways to improve dementia services for a minority ethnic group in England. J Eval Clin Pract. 2020;1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13361

• Hossain, M.Z., & Khan, H. T. A. (2019). Dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England: A qualitative study of the myths and stigmas about dementia. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

• Hossain, M.Z., Crossland, J., Stores, R., Dewey, A., & Hakak, Y. (2018). Awareness and understanding of dementia in South Asians: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Dementia.

Author: As part of this rather large research project, we also conducted a literature review. Some of the sources are old, but still represent relevant perspectives, and where therefore included; e.g. some of the still relevant perspectives of Leininger M. (Becoming aware of types of health practitioners and cultural imposition. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 1991; 2(2), 32-39.)

As the literature review was done in 2015-2017 and the main work with the article was done in 2019, we have not been familiar with the above mentioned studies, but have now included those being of relevance. However, some of the studies that are suggested are focused on the perceptions and aetiology of dementia, and would have suited better in our already published study on this: Sagbakken, M, Spilker, RS, Ingebretsen, R. (2019). Understanding dementia in ethnically diverse groups: a qualitative study from Norway. Ageing & Society

# The authors mentioned about immigrant backgrounds of living with dementia in Norway many times. I was disappointed to see more details about the immigrants' background. As a reader, I would like to see what their backgrounds were, what are their religions (most important thing) etc. Probably, a demographic table would be more interesting to see.

Author: We have yet no records of the number (prevalence) and country background of immigrants living with dementia in Norway. Regarding the participants in this study, they are under the methods section described with country of origin, age and gender. The position of interest is people with a different linguistic and cultural background in need of care due to cognitive impairment (not diagnosed) and dementia; and the experiences of those providing relevant services (relatives and health personnel). We did not ask about people’s religious background, but religion came up as part of their cultural background whenever relevant in responding to the questions. We have restructured the section under methods where we present the participants making the information about them more accessible.

# Abstract: an extra space added before the full stop of the first sentence.

Author: this has been done

# First sentence of page number 3 is vague, not clear. Please re-write it, breaking down it would make more sense, I think.

Author: The sentence is rewritten.

# On page 3, However, many older immigrants come from societies where family structures and expectations of care from family members are stronger than in Western societies (10, 11).

Sentences like this are not helpful, too general, can you give any example?

Author: We have added an example to give more meaning to the content.

# Page 3, Ethnic differences in the use of dementia care services have been documented in Norway and internationally. Needed a reference for this statement

Author’: References are inserted.

# Page 5, The authors underline that the cultural dimension is important to address since specific aspects of culture, such as religion, traditional customs and food, are important needs that can persist into the dementia process.

I'm not quite sure about this sentence, however, religion may or may not be the part of a culture, it's debatable, perhaps a clarification was needed?

Author: We have added religion as a separate element in this paragraph.

# Page 7, I agree with the authors on this statement: Women in particular, might feel obliged to conform to a traditional caregiver role, but without the support from a wider extended family, and in the context of other pressing roles and duties.

I feel a reference is needed with this above sentence and there is a recent paper on the ethnic minority's traditional gender role caring issues: please see below, might be useful:

• Hossain, M.Z., Stores, R., Hakak, Y., Dewey, A. (2020). Traditional gender roles and effects of the dementia caregiving within a South Asian ethnic group in England. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. doi: 10.1159/000506363

Author: The reference to this quote was our own already published paper. However, we have removed this sentence as one of the other reviewers wanted us to shorten down the description of earlier findings.

# Page 10, The research team: I am not sure about how putting all the research team's bio-data, education details and academic positions would be helpful to the readers. I rather feel too much personal information have been included there.

Author: We have limited the information about the researchers in this section.

# Page 11, a semi-structure guide was used: How did you develop a semi-structure guide, based on what information or studies did you prepare your interview questions?

Author: The questions in the interview guide used in the initial FGD’s with healthy older adults were inspired by a thorough literature review that was part of the overall study commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate of Health. The questions in the interview guides used for relatives and health personnel were partly inspired by the same literature review, partly by perspectives provided by the first FGDs with older adults, and partly by discussions of experiences with experts in the field (health personnel, researchers, nongovernmental organization representatives) who served as a resource group throughout the research period. This information is now added.

# Previous studies elsewhere found that for Muslim carers or people with dementia religion play a big part.... what about their religion, presumably, some of these participants were Muslims and Islam put a great concern about care giving and receiving? Such as

Author: The reviewer has not completed the sentence/question, so it is difficult to respond properly. We did not ask about religion in particular but considered it as a part of the cultural background. The only time we could see a pattern of religious influence, was when life-preserving treatment was discussed; people with a Muslim background seemingly representing the group that had most difficulties in accepting treatment to be terminated.

# Details needed about who interviewed the female Muslim participants, there was an issue of interviewing Muslim women found in the literature, you may need to consult with the article where the male author could not interview the female carers: Hossain, M. Z., & Khan, H. T. A. (2019). Dementia in the Bangladeshi diaspora in England: A qualitative study of the myths and stigmas about dementia. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

Author: The three authors, who are all females, did the interviews/FGD’s. We did not experience any problems in relation to interview either men or women. We have added information about the authors themselves performing the interviews under the paragraph Research team.

# Discussion needs to be tightened up:

Author: We have tried to tighten the discussion, but also added references as suggested.

# Perhaps, need to create a section for Recommendation for research & policy: Research is beneficial for any community, what would be the recommendation for the future research and policy makers; perhaps how can this research be useful for ethnic minority community in Norway?

Author: we believe there is a need for intervention research as we now have gained a rather broad knowledge base in regard to this group of patients. This is mentioned in the Conclusion.

# Limitation & Conclusion: a separate limitation and conclusion would be useful for the readers.

Author: We have ended the discussion with a paragraph addressing Strengths and Limitations and keeping a separate Conclusion/implication part.

________________________________________

Decision Letter 1

Antony Bayer

26 Nov 2020

How to adapt caring services to migration-driven diversity? A qualitative study exploring challenges and possible adjustments in the care of people living with dementia

PONE-D-20-07935R1

Dear Dr. Sagbakken,

I am sorry there has been some delay in getting back to you but we’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antony Bayer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers comments on an individual basis but altogether the paper hasn't significantly improved. It is very long and very descriptive, perhaps the data would be best presented as two or three different papers with a clearer focus. The approach is sound and the findings important but the analysis needs more work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: T. Rune Nielsen

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Antony Bayer

11 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-07935R1

How to adapt caring services to migration-driven diversity? A qualitative study exploring challenges and possible adjustments in the care of people living with dementia 

Dear Dr. Sagbakken:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Antony Bayer

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    The datasets (transcripts) generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to risk of recognizing the participants. Additional quotes and examples, that will support the findings, can be provided upon request to Unit for Migration and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, P.O. Box 222 Skøyen, 0213 Oslo | Phone: + 47 907 64 709 | www.fhi.no.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES