The nature of decision-making in people living with dementia: a systematic review

Acceptability of Using a Decision Aid to Support Family Carers of People With Dementia Towards the End of Life: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the experiences, acceptability and utility of a decision aid for family carers of people with dementia towards the end of life.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of family carers enroled into a 6-month feasibility study in England, sampling to gain a range of experiences and views, based on relationship to person they cared for (e.g., spouse, adult child), age, gender, and self-reported use of the decision aid during the feasibility study. Interviews were conducted in March 2021-July 2021 and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We used COREQ checklist to report our methods and results.

RESULTS

Family carers found the decision aid acceptable, describing it as comprehensive, accessible with relevant information and its presentation enabled good engagement. Experiences of the decision aid covered four main themes which demonstrated the perceived acceptability and utility: 1. A source of support and reassurance; 2. Empowering conversations and confidence; 3. Including the person living with dementia; and 4. Breaking down complexity.

CONCLUSIONS

An aid focussing on decisions about dementia end of life care supported family carers break down complex and emotive decisions, not only with making decisions in the moment but also in future planning.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Our three Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members (all former family carers) were crucial throughout the wider study. PPI supported development of the topic guides, supported trialling the topic guide and interview procedures and finally supported the development of themes as part of the analysis.

Exploring the link between tooth loss, cognitive function, and brain wellness in the context of healthy aging

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of using MRI-derived tooth count, an indirect and nonspecific indicator of oral/periodontal health, and brain age gap (BAG), an MRI-based measure of premature brain aging, in predicting cognition in a population of otherwise healthy adults.

METHODS

This retrospective study utilized data from 329 participants from the University of South Carolina's Aging Brain Cohort Repository. Participants underwent neuropsychological testing including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), completed an oral/periodontal health questionnaire, and submitted to high-resolution structural MRI imaging. The study compared variability on cognitive scores (MoCA) accounted for by MRI-derived BAG, MRI-derived total tooth count, and self-reported oral/periodontal health.

RESULTS

We report a significant positive correlation between the total number of teeth and MoCA total scores after controlling for age, sex, and race, indicating a robust relationship between tooth count and cognition, r(208) = .233, p < .001. In a subsample of participants identified as being at risk for MCI (MoCA <= 25, N = 36) inclusion of MRI-based tooth count resulted in an R2 change of .192 (H0 = 0.138 → H1 = 0.330), F(1,31) = 8.86, p = .006. Notably, inclusion of BAG, a valid and reliable measure of overall brain health, did not significantly improve prediction of MoCA scores in similar linear regression models.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the idea that inclusion of MRI-based total tooth count may enhance the ability to predict clinically meaningful differences in cognitive abilities in healthy adults. This study contributes to the growing body of evidence linking oral/periodontal health with cognitive function.

Exploring dental treatment decision-making experiences of people living with dementia and family carers

INTRODUCTION

People living with dementia can have complex dental care needs. Dentists and patients should make treatment decisions together, yet some people living with dementia may be unable to make their own decisions about their dental care. Dental treatment decision-making and patients' experiences of this process have not been comprehensively researched.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the dental treatment decision-making perspectives and experiences of people living with dementia and their family members.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 8 people living with dementia and 17 family caregivers. A constructivist grounded theory approach was adopted, using a maximum variation sample. Qualitative data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. Data underwent initial open coding followed by more focused coding, supported by reflexive memo writing, which supported data categorisation.

RESULTS

People living with dementia reported wanting to be understood as unique individuals with specific needs. All participants described wanting to be actively involved in dental treatment decisions. However, many felt that they were insufficiently involved in treatment decision-making. This perceived underinvolvement meant that some people living with dementia and family members felt the treatment outcomes they sought were neither discussed nor considered.

CONCLUSION

People living with dementia and carers had specific expectations of dental care yet felt passive in decision-making despite their desire to be involved in this process. Dentists should seek to actively establish patients' preferences, regardless of mental capacity and consider these in discussions and decisions about dental treatment.

Professional caregivers' perceived barriers hindering the prevention and reduction of involuntary treatment among older persons receiving long-term care: A mixed methods study

AIMS

To gain insights into the barriers towards the prevention and/or reduction of involuntary treatment in long-term geriatric care.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

BACKGROUND

Measures to which a person resists and/or does not provide consent for are defined as involuntary treatment. The use of involuntary treatment violates the autonomy of (older) persons and causes more harm than benefit. Moreover, it contradicts the values of person-centred care. Nevertheless, its use among people living with dementia (PLWD) is still common practice.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods study, including an online survey for professional caregivers and a semistructured focus group interview with professional caregivers.

RESULTS

A total of 218 participants completed the questionnaire. The percentage of participants who perceived barriers in one of the 22 survey items ranged from 15% to 42%. Lack of time, the experienced need to use involuntary treatment, uncertainty about responsibilities of stakeholders and a lack of knowledge on methods to prevent and/or reduce the use of involuntary treatment were most seen as barriers. Nursing staff perceived a lack of time hindering them in the prevention or reduction of involuntary treatment more often than other professional caregivers. Working in home care and having no former experience with involuntary treatment usage increased perceived barriers. Participants of the focus group interview confirmed these findings and added that professional caregivers in general lack awareness on the concept of involuntary treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

One out of four professional caregivers experiences barriers hindering prevention and/or reduction of involuntary treatment. More research is needed to gain a better understanding of how professional caregivers can be supported to remove barriers and, consequently, prevent and/or reduce the use of involuntary treatment.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Professional caregivers experience many barriers towards the prevention and reduction of involuntary treatment. Future initiatives should aim to remove the perceived barriers.

Time for More Support? Stakeholder Engagement for a Long-Term Care Planning Dementia Decision Aid Prototype

Clinical decision aids around long-term care can help support persons living with dementia (PLWD), family care partners, and healthcare providers navigate current and future care decisions. This study describes the iterative development of a long-term care planning dementia decision aid and explores care partner and geriatric providers’ insights regarding its acceptability and usability. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design, we gathered surveys and completed interviews with 11 care partners and 11 providers. The quantitative and qualitative data were then converged, resulting in four findings: (1) helpfulness of the decision aid in supporting future care planning; (2) versatility of the decision aid in practice; (3) preferences for structure and content of the decision aid; and (4) perceived shortcomings of the decision aid in decision making. Future work should continue to refine the decision aid, pilot implementation, and evaluate potential effects on decision making as part of dementia care.

Decision-making by and for adults with impaired capacity: The potential of the Dutch levenstestament

Anticipatory decision-making instruments - continuing powers of attorney and advance directives - are increasingly seen as a promising way forward to enhance the autonomy of adults with impaired capacity by making the adult's voice an influential component of future decisions. However, little is known about the experiences with these instruments in practice. This article presents the findings of an interview study looking at the expectations and experiences of both adults and attorneys with a Dutch anticipatory decision-making instrument, the so-called levenstestament. In order to realise its full potential, anticipatory decision-making instruments, such as the levenstestament, should be embedded in robust, timely and ongoing conversations between adults and attorneys about the adult's (changing) wishes and preferences and the role of the attorney.

The facilitation of user-involvement for people with dementia as experienced by health care professionals: A qualitative study using focus groups

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to explore how health care professionals experience adaptation of user-involvement for people with dementia receiving health and social care.

METHOD

A qualitative explorative design was used with eight focus groups as the method of data collection. A total of 49 health care professionals were included representing a variety of professions, municipal and specialized health services, and all health regions of Norway. The transcribed focus group interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis following six steps to identify categories and the overall theme.

RESULTS

Six main categories were identified: 1) facilitation of self-determination, 2) challenges of reduced or lack of awareness, 3) family caregivers' concern and protection, 4) open communication, 5) establishing a trustworthy relationship, and 6) clarifying expectations. To maintain independent lives for people with dementia, health care professionals must facilitate and support shared decision-making using an open and trustworthy communication.

CONCLUSION

To facilitate user-involvement, health care professionals need to develop and implement strategies that consider the perspectives of people with dementia and support the relationship between people with dementia and their informal caregivers.

"This is how I want it": Exploring the use of a workbook with persons with dementia to support advance care planning engagement

This mixed method sequential study reports focus group and pilot intervention findings that (1) explore the views of persons with dementia and their caregivers on using a self-directed advance care planning engagement workbook (Your Conversation Starter Kit) and (2) uncover the conditions that encouraged and hindered workbook use. In Phase 1, we conducted five focus groups consisting of 10 persons with dementia and eight family members/caregivers from two urban Canadian cities to explore overall impressions of the workbook and factors that might affect its use. In Phase 2, we empirically explored the factors identified in Phase 1 by distributing the workbook to 24 persons with dementia. The combined findings suggest that the workbook offers promise in supporting advance care planning engagement for persons with dementia in the early stages of their condition. Involving family/caregivers and clarifying some of the ranked questions might improve the workbook’s use. Persons with dementia without familial support or those who have never contemplated advance care planning may require additional guidance prior to workbook distribution.

Making clinical care decisions with people living with dementia in hospital: An integrative literature review

BACKGROUND

As our population ages, the percentage of hospitalised patients diagnosed with dementia is expected to rise. However, there is emerging evidence that people living with dementia may experience discrimination and exclusion from decisions about their clinical care. Although dementia affects cognition, many patients living with dementia want to participate in decision-making processes relating to their clinical care in hospital.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the processes associated with making decisions about clinical care with people living with dementia in hospital.

DESIGN

An integrative literature review.

DATA SOURCES

Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, EMBASE (Ovid), MEDLINE (PubMED), PsycINFO and HeinOnline.

REVIEW METHOD

One author conducted the initial screening of titles, and two authors screened in subsequent rounds for abstracts and full text. The process of making clinical decisions was the outcome of interest. Articles about people with cognitive impairment that did not include dementia, or decisions such as discharge planning or end of life care were excluded. An inductive synthesis of the findings was undertaken.

RESULTS

Nine articles were identified for review and included expert opinion or hypothetical discussion (n=5), cross-sectional survey research (n=3), and qualitative research (n=1). Three themes were identified: capacity for decision-making is conceptualised as 'all or nothing'; there are no universal principles for including people living with dementia in decision-making in acute care settings; and autonomy is recognised but superseded by beneficence.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary hospital practice is focused on determining capacity for decisions, with an all or nothing attitude to capacity, effectively excluding many people living with dementia from participation in decisions. While there is limited evidence to guide clinicians in this complex and situated process of making clinical decisions, emerging models of supported decision-making require further evaluation in the hospital setting.

"Who to Tell, How and When?": Development and Preliminary Feasibility of an Empowerment Intervention for People Living with Dementia Who are Fearful of Disclosing Their Diagnosis

Objective

This study describes the adaptation of Honest, Open, Proud (HOP), to develop an empowerment intervention supporting disclosure decision-making for dyads of people living with dementia and their chosen supporter.

Methods

Medical Research Council guidelines for developing complex interventions informed intervention development and feasibility testing. This included identifying the evidence base and theory (establishing HOP theory of change, a systematic review on decision-making in dementia, a stakeholder consultation), modelling the intervention materials with research experts (creation of version 1.0) and experts by experience (creation of version 2.0), and pilot testing the intervention recording participant observations and facilitator reflections. The final version of the intervention materials was developed with experts by experience of dementia where the accessibility of language and appropriate styles of facilitation were the focus.

Results

The concept of the intervention was strongly endorsed by respondents of the stakeholder consultation (209/226). Stakeholder preferences included face-to-face delivery, a manualized workbook approach and the inclusion of the primary carer during intervention delivery. Recruitment for intervention groups took place in non-NHS settings (2 small groups recruited) and NHS settings (no groups recruited). In non-NHS settings, 7 dyads agreed to take part in one of two intervention groups. Both intervention groups had over 70% attendance by participants (group 1: 72.2% group 2: 87.5%).

Conclusion

The concept of an intervention to support diagnostic disclosure was endorsed by stakeholders; however, recruitment was challenging; the “who to tell, how and when?” intervention has the potential to fill a gap in the post-diagnostic pathway.

Decision Regret among Informal Caregivers Making Housing Decisions for Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Background. Informal caregivers are regularly faced with difficult housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment. They often regret the decision they made. We aimed to identify factors associated with decision regret among informal caregivers engaging in housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. Methods. We performed a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data collected from a cluster-randomized trial. Eligible participants were informal caregivers involved in making housing decisions for cognitively impaired older adults. Decision regret was assessed after caregivers' enrollment in the study using the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), scored from 0 to 100. We used a conceptual framework of potential predictors of regret to identify independent variables. We performed multilevel analyses using a mixed linear model by estimating fixed effects (β) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. The mean (SD) DRS score of 296 informal caregivers (mean [SD] age, 62 [12] years) was 12.4 (18.4). Factors associated with less decision regret were having a college degree compared to primary education (β [95% CI]: -11.14 [-18.36, -3.92]), being married compared to being single (-5.60 [-10.05, -1.15]), informal caregivers' perception that a joint process occurred (-0.14 [-0.25, -0.02]), and older adults' not having a specific housing preference compared to preferring to stay at home (-4.13 [-7.40, -0.86]). Factors associated with more decision regret were being retired compared to being a homemaker (7.74 [1.32, 14.16]), higher burden of care (0.14 [0.05, 0.22]), and higher decisional conflict (0.51 [0.34, 0.67]). Limitations. Our analysis may not illustrate all predictors of decision regret among informal caregivers. Conclusions. Our findings will allow risk-mitigation strategies for informal caregivers at risk of experiencing regret.