Selecting Outcomes to Ensure Pragmatic Trials Are Relevant to People Living with Dementia

Pragmatic Clinical Trials for Dementia Care: Experience from the First 5 Years of the IMPACT Collaboratory

The IMPACT Collaboratory is a national infrastructure and resource dedicated to transforming dementia care in real-world environments for millions of Americans and their care partners, using embedded pragmatic clinical trials. This new approach of applied clinical research holds the promise of accelerating the science of dementia care, improving relevancy of interventions to real-world partners, promoting health equity, and closing the gaps between research, everyday clinical practice, and lived experiences of people living with dementia and their care partners.

Selecting outcomes for pragmatic clinical trials in dementia care: The IMPACT Collaboratory iLibrary

BACKGROUND

Many interventions improve care and outcomes for people with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet are never disseminated. Pragmatic trials facilitate the adoption and dissemination of best practices, but gaps in pragmatic outcome measurement are a critical obstacle. Our objectives are (1) to describe the development and structure of the IMbedded Pragmatic ADRD Clinical Trials Collaboratory (IMPACT) iLibrary of potential outcome measures for ADRD pragmatic trials, and (2) to assess their pragmatic characteristics.

METHODS

We identified potential outcome measures from several sources: a database of administrative and clinical outcome measures from ADRD clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, published reviews, and IMPACT pilot pragmatic trial outcome measures. The iLibrary reports (a) number of items, (b) completion time, (c) readability for diverse populations, (d) cost or copyright barriers to use, (e) method of administration, (f) assessor training burden, and (g) feasibility of data capture and interpretation in routine care; a summary of pragmatic characteristics of each outcome measure (high, moderate, low); items or descriptions of items; and links to primary citations regarding development or psychometric properties.

RESULTS

We included 140 outcome measures in the iLibrary: 66 administrative (100% were pragmatic) and 74 clinical (52% were pragmatic). The most commonly addressed outcome domains from administrative assessments included physical function, quality of care or communication concerns, and psychological symptoms or distress behaviors. The most commonly addressed outcome domains from clinical assessments were psychological symptoms or distress behaviors, physical function, cognitive function, and health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Pragmatic outcome measures are brief, meaningful to diverse populations, easily scored and interpreted by clinicians, and available in electronic format for analysis. The iLibrary can facilitate the selection of measures for a wide range of outcomes relevant to people with ADRD and their care partners.

Evaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves discussing a person's goals, values, and preferences; it is particularly important for persons living with dementia (PLWD) given that dementia is incurable and progressive. To ensure results that will impact real-world practices, ACP outcome measures must be psychometrically strong, meaningful to key partners, and pragmatic to collect. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of outcome measures utilized in ACP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling PLWD or their care partners and evaluated their pragmatic characteristics.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed ACP RCTs enrolling PLWD or their care partners from 2011 to 2021. We abstracted characteristics of primary and secondary outcome measures, including pragmatic characteristics using an adapted Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale and ACP outcome domains using the standardized ACP Outcome Framework (i.e., process, action, healthcare, or quality of care).

RESULTS

We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. Twenty-four (23%) outcome measures were highly pragmatic, the majority of which (67%) reflected healthcare outcome measures. Sixty-one (59%) outcomes were assessed as highly relevant to PLWD or their care partners. Only 20% (n = 21) of outcome measures were embedded into clinical practice. Most (62%) RCTs were conducted in nursing homes, and 33% were focused PLWD with advanced stage disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In RCTs testing ACP interventions to support PLWD, only 23% of outcome measures were highly pragmatic, and most of these measured healthcare utilizations. Outcome assessments were rarely integrated into the EHR during routine clinical care. New outcome measures that address the lived experience of PLWD and their care partners plus have high pragmatic characteristics are needed for embedded pragmatic clinical trials.

Protecting seriously ill populations during pragmatic clinical trials

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) emphasize real-world effectiveness methodology to address the limitations of results from explanatory randomized clinical trials (RCTs), which often fail to translate to real-world medical practice. An inherent tension in the conduct of PCTs is that the research must impose a minimal burden on patients and health care institutions. PCTs prioritize outcome measures from existing data sources to minimize data collection burden; however, a lack of patient-reported outcomes may result in gaps in safety for vulnerable populations, such as those with serious illnesses. One proposed standard for judging the readiness of a study for a pragmatic trial is a ranking system that assigns PCTs a lower rank if they impose additional data collection burdens. However, this results in the wide use of measures of health care utilization and costs while patient experience measures, which could capture adverse unintended consequences, are omitted. In this article, we make the case for a risk-based approach to imposing additional data collection in PCTs to capture potential safety and patient experience outcomes, using examples from "real life" implemented interventions to improve end-of-life care through the Liverpool Pathway and through the implementation of Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) in Oregon.

Considerations When Designing and Implementing Pragmatic Clinical Trials That Include Older Hispanics

Introduction

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are designed to connect researchers with clinicians to assess the real-world effectiveness and feasibility of interventions, treatments, or health care delivery strategies in routine practice. Within PCTs larger, more representative sampling is possible to improve the external validity of the research. Older adults from underrepresented groups can benefit from PCTs given their historically lower engagement in clinical research. The current article focuses on older Hispanic adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRDs). Older Hispanic adults represent 19% of the US population and have a higher prevalence of ADRDs than Whites. We provide data from 2 PCTs about the recruitment of older Hispanics with ADRDs and discuss unique challenges associated with conducting PCTs and propose strategies to overcome challenges.

Data and Methods

The first PCT outlined is the Patient Priorities Care for Hispanics with Dementia (PPC-HD) trial. PPC-HD is testing the feasibility of implementing a culturally adapted version of the Patient Priorities Care approach for older Hispanic adults with multiple chronic conditions and dementia. The second PCT is the Dementia Care (D-CARE) Study, which is a multisite pragmatic study comparing the effectiveness of a health care system-based approach and a community-based approach to dementia care to usual care in patients with ADRDs and their family caregivers.

Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Future Studies

The lessons learned are summarized according to the various stakeholders that need to work together to effectively recruit diverse participants for PCTs: individuals, health care systems, research teams, and communities. Individual-level considerations include communication, priorities, and flexibility. Health care system-level considerations are grounded in 4 principles of Community-Based Participatory Research and include collaboration/partnership, available resources, priorities of the health care system, and sustainability. Research team-level considerations include team members, intentionality, and communication. Community-level considerations highlight the importance of partnerships, community members, and appropriate incentives.

Discussion

PCTs provide a unique and potentially impactful opportunity to test interventions in real-world settings that must be culturally appropriate to reach underrepresented groups. Collectively, considering variables at multiple levels to address the needs of older adults with ADRDs is crucial, and the examples and suggestions provided in this report are a foundation for future research.

Dementia patient and caregiver relevant outcomes currently being reported by adult day service centers in the United States

Background

Approximately one third of adults in adult day services (ADS) centers have Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (ADRD). Understanding of the impact and effectiveness of ADS on persons living with dementia (PLWD) is limited by a lack of patient and caregiver relevant outcomes (PCRO) data. We identified PCROs collected at ADS sites in states that mandate serial data collection and examined the degree to which these data align with established Dementia Care Practice Recommendations (DCPR) and PCROs used in other areas of long-term care.

Methods

We conducted an item analysis of regulatory forms used by ADS. Consistent with the methodology used by the Imbedded Pragmatic AD/ADRD Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory for PCROs collected in other long-term care settings, we created a matrix informed by DCPR. We matched each item in regulatory forms reflecting a PCRO to one of the seven DCPR domains as well as to the 53 PCROs from other long-term care sectors.

Results

Ten states routinely collect outcome data in ADS. Among these, 80% assess cognitive function. All 10 states capture PLWD's ability to complete activities of daily living. Presence and frequency of behavioral symptoms were collected by 80% of states. Very few or, in some cases, none of the 10 states, collected PCROs related to care planning and coordination, education, social support, and/or family caregiver burden and support.

Discussion

Lack of standardized collection of PCROs hampers researchers' understanding of ADS. The vast majority of PCROs collected center on participants' physical health; conversely, data on socialization, social support, and caregiver well-being, which are purportedly the most impactful services offered by ADS centers, are rarely collected. ADS would be well served to focus on these outcome domains as the resulting data could paint a more complete picture of the holistic impact of ADS on PLWD and their caregivers.

Systematic review of guidance for the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes in real-world evidence generation to support regulation, reimbursement and health policy

Background

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an increasingly important role within global regulatory and reimbursement processes. RWE generation can be enhanced by the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can provide valuable information on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of health interventions from the patient perspective. This systematic review aims to examine and summarise the available PRO-specific recommendations and guidance for RWE generation.

Methods and findings

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, and websites of selected organisations were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. 1,249 articles were screened of which 7 papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The included publications provided PRO-specific recommendations to facilitate the use of PROs for RWE generation and these were extracted and grouped into eight major categories. These included: (1) instrument selection, (2) participation and engagement, (3) burden to health care professionals and patients, (4) stakeholder collaboration, (5) education and training, (6) PRO implementation process, (7) data collection and management, and (8) data analysis and presentation of results. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant publications, due to poor indexing of the databases and websites searched.

Conclusions

PROs may provide valuable and crucial patient input in RWE generation. Whilst valuable insights can be gained from guidance for use of PROs in clinical care, there is a lack of international guidance specific to RWE generation in the context of use for regulatory decision-making, reimbursement, and health policy. Clear and appropriate evidence-based guidance is required to maximise the potential benefits of implementing PROs for RWE generation. Unique aspects between PRO guidance for clinical care and other purposes should be differentiated. The needs of various stakeholder groups (including patients, health care professionals, regulators, payers, and industry) should be considered when developing future guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00466-7.

Outcomes valued by people living with dementia and their care partners: protocol for a qualitative systematic review and synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Growing numbers of interventions are being developed to support people and families living with dementia, but the extent to which they address the areas of most importance to the intended recipients is unclear. This qualitative review will synthesise outcomes identified as important from the perspectives of people living with dementia and their care partners, both for themselves and each other.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The review will employ thematic synthesis methodology. Studies from 1990 or later will be eligible if they include qualitative data on the views of people living with dementia or their care partners on valued outcomes or the lived experience of dementia. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycInfo and Social Sciences Premium Collection, in addition to systematically gathered grey literature. Rayyan QCRI software will be used to manage the screening processes, and NVivo software will be used to manage data extraction and analysis. The review will also critically evaluate the extent to which international recommendations address the areas of importance to people living with dementia and their families. The findings will be of relevance to researchers, policy makers and providers and commissioners of dementia services. The protocol is written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

As the methodology of this study consists of collecting data from publicly available articles, it does not require ethical approval. We will share the results through conference presentations and an open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Our mixed stakeholder involvement group will advise on dissemination to non-academic audiences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020219274.

Recommendations to Deliver Person-Centered Long-Term Care for Persons Living With Dementia

Person-centered care (PCC) is the standard for the delivery of long-term services and supports (LTSS). In this article, we summarize the state of the science on meaningful outcomes and workforce development and discuss what is needed to ensure that person-centered LTSS becomes a universal reality. These 2 themes are intimately related: the dementia care workforce’s capacity cannot be improved until care processes and outcomes that are significant to PCC are explicated. The LTSS workforce needs training in PCC as well as pragmatic measures to assess the quality of the care they provide. We conclude with several recommendations for future policy and practice-oriented workforce research.

Nursing home performance in a trial to reduce hospitalizations: Implications for future trials

BACKGROUND

Experience in trials of implementing quality improvement (QI) programs in nursing homes (NHs) has been variable. Understanding the characteristics of NHs that demonstrate improvements during these trials is critical to improving NH care.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of implementation of a QI program to reduce hospital transfers.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventy-one NHs that completed the 12-month trial INTERVENTION: Implementation included distance-learning strategies, involvement of a champion, regular submission of data on hospitalizations and root cause analyses of transfers, and training, feedback and support.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes included all-cause and potentially avoidable hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits per 1000 NH resident days, and the percentage of residents readmitted in 30-days. We compared multiple other variables that could influence effective program implementation in NHs in the highest versus lowest quartile of changes in the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The 18 high-performing NHs had significant reductions in hospitalization and ED visits, whereas the 18 NHs in the low-performing group had increases. The difference in changes in each outcome varied between a reduction of 0.75 and 2.30 events relative to a NH with a census of 100; the absolute difference in 30-day readmissions was 19%. None of the variables we examined reached significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons between the groups. There was no consistent pattern of differences in nonprofit status, nursing staffing, and quality ratings.

CONCLUSION

Our experience and reviews of other NH trials suggest that key factors contributing to successful implementation QI programs in NHs remain unclear. To improve NH care, implementation trials should account for intervention fidelity and factors that have not been examined in detail, such as degree and nature of leadership support, financial and regulatory incentives, quality measures, resident and family perspectives, and the availability of onsite high-quality medical care and support of the medical director.

Reflections on the IJHPR's article collection on dementia

Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease-related dementias (AD/ADRD) constitute a worldwide public health crisis. In light of the AD/ADRD epidemic now existing within the global COVID-19 pandemic, the need for global action to improve dementia care is greater than ever. The article collection "Dementia- an Interdisciplinary Approach," in the Israeli Journal of Health Policy and Research (IJHPR) highlights the need for interprofessional approaches to improving outcomes for people living with dementia and their care partners, as well as the complexities of conducting dementia care research.