Components, impacts and costs of dementia home support: a research programme including the DESCANT RCT

How do quantitative studies involving people with dementia report experiences of standardised data collection? A narrative synthesis of NIHR published studies

BACKGROUND

People with dementia are routinely included as research participants in trials and other quantitative studies in which they are invited to respond to standardised measures. This paper reviews the reporting of standardised data collection from people with dementia in reports published in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Journals Library. The aim was to understand how the administration of standardised, self-report measures with people with dementia is reported in NIHR monographs and what could be learnt from this about the feasibility and acceptability of data collection approaches for future studies.

METHODS

This was a systematic review with narrative synthesis. Broad search terms (Dementia OR Alzheimer*) were used to search the NIHR Journals Library website in December 2021. All studies that used (or intended to use) standardised measures to collect research data directly from people with dementia were eligible for inclusion. Information was extracted (where reported) on the process of data collection, dementia severity, levels of missing data and the experiences and reflections of those involved.

RESULTS

Searches returned 42 records, from which 17 reports were assessed as eligible for inclusion, containing 22 studies. Response rates from participants with dementia in these studies varied considerably and appeared to be related to dementia severity and place of residence. Little information was reported on the process of data collection or the reasons for missing data, and most studies did not report the experiences of participants or those administering the measures. However, there was an indication from two studies that standardised data collection could provoke emotional distress in some participants with dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this review we identified both variation in levels of missing data and gaps in reporting which make it difficult to ascertain the reasons for this variation. We also identified potential risks to the well-being of participants with dementia which may be associated with the content of standardised measures and the context of data collection. Open reporting of and reflection upon data collection processes and the experiences of people involved is essential to ensure both the success of future data collection and the wellbeing of study participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with Research on Research https://ror-hub.org/study/2905/ .

Standardised data collection from people with dementia over the telephone: A qualitative study of the experience of DETERMIND programme researchers in a pandemic

There is a notable lack of evidence on what constitutes good practice in remote quantitative data collection from research participants with dementia. During the COVID-19 pandemic face-to-face research became problematic, especially where participants were older and more at risk of infection. The DETERMIND-C19 study, a large cohort study of people with dementia, switched to telephone data collection over this period. This paper explores the experiences of researchers who collected quantitative data over the telephone from people with dementia during the first COVID-19 lockdowns in England. The aim was to learn from these experiences, share insights and inform future research practice across disciplines. Seven DETERMIND researchers were interviewed about the processes and challenges of collecting quantitative data from people with dementia over the telephone compared to face-to-face. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Two themes were developed: first the telephone adds an extra layer of confusion to an already cognitively complex interaction. Second, researchers found it difficult to recognise subtle cues that signalled participants' rising emotion over the telephone in time to prevent distress. The researchers employed strategies to support participants which may not have conformed to the strict conventions of structured interviewing, but which were informed by person-oriented principles. Whilst in practice this may be a common approach to balancing the needs of participants and the requirements of quantitative research, it is rare for studies to openly discuss such trade-offs in the literature. Honest, reflective reporting is required if the practice of remote data collection from people with dementia is to progress ethically and with integrity.

Cognitive rehabilitation for people with mild to moderate dementia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive impairments affect functional ability in people with dementia. Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is a personalised, solution-focused approach that aims to enable people with mild-to-moderate dementia to manage everyday activities and maintain as much independence as possible.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of CR on everyday functioning and other outcomes for people with mild-to-moderate dementia, and on outcomes for care partners. To identify and explore factors that may be associated with the efficacy of CR.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, which contains records from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, and other clinical trial databases, and grey literature sources. The most recent search was completed on 19 October 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CR with control conditions and reporting relevant outcomes for the person with dementia and/or the care partner.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted relevant data from published manuscripts and contacted trial authors if necessary. Within each of the comparisons, we pooled data for each outcome of interest and conducted inverse-variance, random-effects meta-analyses. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADEpro GDT.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible RCTs published in English between 2010 and 2022, which together included 1702 participants. The mean age of participants ranged from 76 to 80 and the proportion of male participants was between 29.4% and 79.3%. Most participants, in the studies where the type of dementia was reported, had a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD; n = 1002, 58.9% of the whole sample, 81.2% of the participants for whom the specific diagnosis was reported). Risk of bias in the individual studies was relatively low. The exception was a high risk of bias in relation to blinding of participants and practitioners, which is not usually feasible with psychosocial interventions.  Our primary outcome of everyday functioning was operationalised in the included studies as goal attainment in relation to activities targeted in the intervention. For our main comparison of CR with usual care, we pooled data for goal attainment evaluated from three perspectives (self-rating of performance, informant rating of performance, and self-rating of satisfaction with performance) at end of treatment and at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months). We could also pool data at these time points for 20 and 19 secondary outcomes respectively. The review findings were strongly driven by one large, high-quality RCT.  We found high-certainty evidence of large positive effects of CR on all three primary outcome perspectives at the end of treatment: participant self-ratings of goal attainment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 1.66; I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 501 participants), informant ratings of goal attainment (SMD 1.61, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.21; I2 = 41%; 3 RCTs, 476 participants), and self-ratings of satisfaction with goal attainment (SMD 1.31, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.54; I2 = 5%; 3 RCTs, 501 participants), relative to an inactive control condition. At medium-term follow-up, we found high-certainty evidence showing a large positive effect of CR on all three primary outcome perspectives: participant self-ratings of goal attainment (SMD 1.46, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.68; I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 432 participants), informant ratings of goal attainment (SMD 1.25, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.72; I2 = 29%; 3 RCTs, 446 participants), and self-ratings of satisfaction with goal attainment (SMD 1.19, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.66; I2 = 28%; 2 RCTs, 432 participants), relative to an inactive control condition. For participants at the end of treatment we found high-certainty evidence showing a small positive effect of CR on self-efficacy (2 RCTs, 456 participants) and immediate recall (2 RCTs, 459 participants). For participants at medium-term follow-up we found moderate-certainty evidence showing a small positive effect of CR on auditory selective attention (2 RCTs, 386 participants), and a small negative effect on general functional ability (3 RCTs, 673 participants), and we found low-certainty evidence showing a small positive effect on sustained attention (2 RCTs, 413 participants), and a small negative effect on memory (2 RCTs, 51 participants) and anxiety (3 RCTs, 455 participants).  We found moderate- and low-certainty evidence indicating that at the end of treatment CR had negligible effects on participant anxiety, quality of life, sustained attention, memory, delayed recall, and general functional ability, and at medium-term follow-up on participant self-efficacy, depression, quality of life, immediate recall, and verbal fluency. For care partners at the end of treatment we found low-certainty evidence showing a small positive effect on environmental aspects of quality of life (3 RCTs, 465 care partners), and small negative effects of CR on level of depression (2 RCTs, 32 care partners) and on psychological wellbeing (2 RCTs, 388 care partners).  For care partners at medium-term follow-up we found high-certainty evidence showing a small positive effect of CR on social aspects of quality of life (3 RCTs, 436 care partners) and moderate-certainty evidence showing a small positive effect on psychological aspects of quality of life (3 RCTs, 437 care partners). We found moderate- and low-certainty evidence at the end of treatment that CR had negligible effects on care partners' physical health, psychological and social aspects of quality of life, and stress, and at medium-term follow-up for the physical health aspect of care partners' quality of life and psychological wellbeing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

CR is helpful in enabling people with mild or moderate dementia to improve their ability to manage the everyday activities targeted in the intervention. Confidence in these findings could be strengthened if more high-quality studies contributed to the observed effects. The available evidence suggests that CR can form a valuable part of a clinical toolkit to assist people with dementia in overcoming some of the everyday barriers imposed by cognitive and functional difficulties. Future research, including process evaluation studies, could help identify avenues to maximise CR effects and achieve wider impacts on functional ability and wellbeing.

Discrepancies in dyadic coping: associations with distress and quality of life in couples facing early stage dementia

Objectives

Due to an aging population, the number of persons living with dementia (PWDs) is increasing worldwide. Romantic partners, as informal caregivers (IC) of PWDs, are often adopting additional tasks. The concept of dyadic coping (DC) addresses how couples cope with stress together. For dyadic coping to be successful, efforts of both partners should be equal. The current study examines how discrepancies in PWDs and ICs perspectives on DC relate to distress and quality of life in each partner within couples facing early stage dementia (ESD).

Methods

A total of 37 mixed-sex couples including one partner with ESD completed self-report questionnaires. Discrepancies in reciprocity (comparing provided or received levels of DC between partners), equity (each partner balancing own levels received and provided), and congruence (the agreement about levels of DC exchanged between partners) and their covariation with distress and quality of life (QoL) of each partner were measured.

Results

Both partners indicated a discrepancy in reciprocity: PWDs reported receiving more DC than ICs reported receiving, which was associated with higher QoL in PWDs and lower QoL in ICs. Inequities were found in ICs only, who reported receiving less DC, than providing. No relation between inequities and distress or QoL was found. ICs reported more incongruencies than PWDs did, which was associated with higher QoL and less depression in partners.

Discussion

A redivision of tasks and roles in the early stage of dementia is associated with different experiences and views between partners. Whereas ICs take over most household and care tasks within the couple, their effort was considered less helpful by PWDs than by ICs. A high care burden is associated with a compromised quality of ICs' social life and living conditions. The clinical implications of the results are discussed.

Dementia Early-Stage Cognitive Aids New Trial (DESCANT) of memory aids and guidance for people with dementia: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Common memory aids for people with dementia at home are recommended. However, rigorous evaluation is lacking, particularly what guidance or support is valued.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate effects of memory aids and guidance by dementia support practitioners (DSPs) for people in early-stage dementia through a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

Of 469 people with mild-to-moderate dementia and their informal carers, 468 were randomised to a DSP with memory aids or to usual care plus existing dementia guide. Allocation was stratified by Trust/Health Board; time since first attendance at memory service; gender; age; and living with primary carer or not. Primary outcome was Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) Score at 3 and 6 months (primary end-point). Secondary outcomes for people with dementia: quality of life (CASP-19; DEMQOL); cognition and functioning (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale; S-MMSE); capability (ICECAP-O); social networks (LSNS-R); and instrumental daily living activities (R-IDDD). Secondary outcomes for carers: psychological health (GHQ-12); sense of competence (SSCQ).

RESULTS

DSPs were successfully trained, compliance was good and welcomed by participants. Mean 6 months BADLS Score increased to 14.6 (SD: 10.4) in intervention and 12.6 (SD: 8.1) in comparator, indicative of greater dependence in the activities of daily living. Adjusted between-group difference was 0.38 (95% CI: -0.89 to 1.65, p=0.56). Though this suggests greater dependency in the intervention group the difference was not significant. No differences were found in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention did not maintain independence in the activities of daily living with no improvement in other outcomes for people with dementia or carers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12591717.