Memory support training and lifestyle modifications to promote healthy aging in persons at risk for Alzheimer's disease: a digital application supported intervention (Brain Boosters)

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based interventions to protect against cognitive decline among older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) are urgently needed. Rehabilitation approaches to support memory and behavioral/lifestyle interventions are recognized as promising strategies for preserving or improving cognitive health, although few previous interventions have combined both approaches. This paper describes the protocol of the Brain Boosters intervention, which synergistically combines training in compensatory and healthy lifestyle behaviors and supports implementation and tracking of new behaviors with a digital application.

METHODS

The study utilizes a single-site, single-blinded, randomized controlled design to compare a structured lifestyle and compensatory aid intervention to an education-only self-guided intervention. We plan to enroll 225 community-dwelling adults (25% from underrepresented groups) aged 65 + who endorse subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and low baseline levels of healthy lifestyle behaviors. Both interventions will be administered in group format, consisting of 15 two-hour classes that occur weekly for ten weeks and taper to bi-monthly and monthly, for an intervention duration of 6 months. Participants in both interventions will receive education about a variety of memory support strategies and healthy lifestyle behaviors, focusing on physical and cognitive activity and stress management. The structured intervention will also receive support in adopting new behaviors and tracking set goals aided by the Electronic Memory and Management Aid (EMMA) digital application. Primary outcomes include global cognition (composite of memory, attention, and executive function tests) and everyday function (Everyday Cognition Questionnaire). Data will be collected at baseline and outcome visits, at approximately 6, 12, and 18 months. Qualitative interviews, self-report surveys (e.g., indicators of self-determination, health literacy) and EMMA data metrics will also be used to identify what components of the intervention are most effective and for whom they work.

DISCUSSION

Successful project completion will provide valuable information about how individuals with SCD respond to a compensation and preventative lifestyle intervention assisted by a digital application, including an understanding of factors that may impact outcomes, treatment uptake, and adherence. The work will also inform development, scaling, and personalization of future interventions that can delay disability in individuals at risk for ADRD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov. (NCT05027789, posted 8/30/2021).

Cognitive Therapy-as-Usual versus Cognitive Therapy plus the Memory Support Intervention for adults with depression: 12-month outcomes and opportunities for improved efficacy in a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Patient memory for treatment is emerging as an important transdiagnostic mechanism of treatment outcomes. However, patient memory for treatment is limited. The Memory Support Intervention was developed to improve patient memory for treatment and thereby strengthen treatment outcomes. In this secondary analysis, the primary, preregistered aim was to test the 12-month follow-up outcomes of the Memory Support Intervention when used with cognitive therapy (CT + MS) for major depressive disorder, relative to CT-as-usual. The secondary, exploratory aim was to investigate opportunities to improve efficacy of the Memory Support Intervention.

METHOD

Adults (N = 178) with major depressive disorder were randomized to CT-as-usual or CT + MS. Therapist use of memory support and patient memory for treatment, depression symptoms, and overall functioning were measured in blind assessments.

RESULTS

Findings did not support differences between treatment conditions at 12-month follow-up. Therapists used memory support strategies with a narrow subset of treatment contents, and similarly, patients recalled a narrow subset of treatment contents.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight ways to strengthen the efficacy of the Memory Support Intervention, such as applying memory support strategies across a wider variety of treatment contents, which in turn, may boost patient recall and outcomes.

Optimizing outcomes, mechanisms, and recall of Cognitive Therapy for depression: Dose of constructive memory support strategies

OBJECTIVE

Poor memory for treatment is associated with worse patient outcomes. Therapist use of constructive memory support strategies, which help patients actively engage with treatment content, may improve patient memory for treatment. We sought to identify the dose of constructive memory support needed to optimize treatment outcomes, mechanisms, and patient recall.

METHOD

Adults with major depressive disorder (N = 178, mean age = 37.9, 63% female, 17% Hispanic or Latino/a) were randomized to Cognitive Therapy plus a Memory Support Intervention or Cognitive Therapy as usual. Because therapists from both groups used constructive memory support, treatment conditions were combined to maximize data. Depression and overall impairment were assessed before treatment, immediately post-treatment (POST), and six (6FU) and 12 months (12FU) after treatment. Patients completed measures of treatment mechanisms - utilization/competency in Cognitive Therapy skills - and treatment recall at POST, 6FU, and 12FU. Patient adherence to treatment was averaged across sessions.

RESULTS

Using Kaplan-Meier Survival Analyses, the optimal dose of constructive memory support was eight uses per session (sensitivity analysis range: 5-12 uses). Pre-treatment depression symptoms and patient perceptions of treatment may impact the optimal dose.

CONCLUSION

Eight uses of constructive memory support by therapists per session may optimize treatment outcomes, mechanisms, and recall over the long-term.

Client memory and learning of treatment contents: An experimental study of intervention strategies and relationship to outcome in a brief treatment for procrastination

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Client memory and learning is limited for psychological treatment contents. This study investigated different approaches to support client memory and learning of treatment contents and the relationship between memory and learning of treatment contents and outcome.

METHODS

Adult participants (n = 428) were recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized to complete one of three versions of a one-session procrastination intervention. Two versions of the intervention included different amounts of memory support strategy types from the Memory Support Intervention. A control version did not include any types of memory support. Memory and learning of treatment contents were assessed immediately after the intervention and one week later. Procrastination and two mechanisms of procrastination (impulsiveness and self-efficacy) were assessed at baseline and one week after the intervention.

RESULTS

Contrary to the hypotheses, a version of the intervention with multiple types of memory support strategies was not associated with better memory and learning of treatment contents than a version of the intervention with only one type of memory support strategy or the control intervention. Greater memory and learning of treatment contents predicted improvement in mechanisms of procrastination, but not procrastination itself.

LIMITATIONS

The mean level of procrastination in this study was lower than in other treatment studies of procrastination.

CONCLUSIONS

Results partially support the rationale for the Memory Support Intervention that improving client memory and learning of treatment contents can improve outcome. Findings suggest that the Memory Support Intervention may be simplified to include fewer strategies without compromising efficacy.

What influences the selection of contextual cues when starting a new routine behaviour? An exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Contextual cues play an important role in facilitating behaviour change. They not only support memory but may also help to make the new behaviour automatic through the formation of new routines. However, previous research shows that when people start a new behaviour, they tend to select cues that lack effectiveness for prompting behaviour. Therefore, it is important to understand what influences cue selection, as this can help to identify acceptable cues, which in turn could inform future behaviour change interventions to help people select cues that best fit their context and so ensure continued repetition.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study to investigate what cues people select, how, and what influences their decisions. We recruited 39 participants and asked them to take vitamin C tablets daily for 3 weeks and later interviewed them about their experience. Quantitative habit strength and memory measures were taken for descriptive purposes.

RESULTS

Cue selection was primarily influenced by a desire to minimise effort, e.g. keeping related objects at hand or in a visible place; prior experience with similar behaviours (regardless of whether the cues used in the past were reliable or not); and beliefs about effective approaches. In addition, we found that suboptimal remembering strategies involved reliance on a single cue and loosely defined plans that do not specify cues. Moreover, for many participants, identifying optimal cues required trial and error, as people were rarely able to anticipate in advance what approach would work best for them.

CONCLUSIONS

Future behaviour change interventions that rely on routine behaviours might fruitfully include the provision of educational information regarding what approaches are suboptimal (single factors, vaguely defined plans) and what is most likely to work (combining multiple clearly defined cues). They should also assess people's existing beliefs about how to best remember specific behaviours as such beliefs can either enhance or inhibit the cues they select. Finally, interventions should account for the fact that early failures to remember are part of the process of developing a reliable remembering strategy and to be expected.

Patient constructive learning behavior in cognitive therapy: A pathway for improving patient memory for treatment?

Patient memory for treatment is poor and associated with worse outcome. The Memory Support Intervention was designed to improve outcome by enhancing patient memory for treatment. Half of the strategies comprising the Memory Support Intervention (termed constructive memory support strategies) involve therapists inviting patients to construct new ideas, inferences, or connections related to treatment material that go beyond information already presented by therapists. This study investigated the relationship between patient responses to therapist use of constructive memory support strategies and patient recall of treatment contents. Therapist uses of constructive memory support strategies were coded from sessions recorded during a pilot trial of the Memory Support Intervention in the context of cognitive therapy for depression (n = 44 patients). Patients who successfully constructed new ideas, inferences, or connections (termed patient constructive learning behavior) in response to therapist use of constructive memory support strategies showed greater recall of treatment contents. Mediation analyses provided some evidence that patient constructive learning behavior may be a mechanism through which the Memory Support Intervention results in enhanced patient memory. Results highlight patient constructive learning behavior as a potential pathway for improving patient memory for treatment.

Can integrating the Memory Support Intervention into cognitive therapy improve depression outcome? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The Memory Support Intervention was developed in response to evidence showing that: (1) patient memory for treatment is poor, (2) poor memory for treatment is associated with poorer adherence and poorer outcome, (3) the impact of memory impairment can be minimized by the use of memory support strategies and (4) improved memory for treatment improves outcome. The aim of this study protocol is to conduct a confirmatory efficacy trial to test whether the Memory Support Intervention improves illness course and functional outcomes. As a “platform” for the next step in investigating this approach, we focus on major depressive disorder (MDD) and cognitive therapy (CT).

Method/design

Adults with MDD (n = 178, including 20% for potential attrition) will be randomly allocated to CT + Memory Support or CT-as-usual and will be assessed at baseline, post treatment and at 6 and 12 months’ follow-up (6FU and 12FU). We will compare the effects of CT + Memory Support vs. CT-as-usual to determine if the new intervention improves the course of illness and reduces functional impairment (aim 1). We will determine if patient memory for treatment mediates the relationship between treatment condition and outcome (aim 2). We will evaluate if previously reported poor treatment response subgroups moderate target engagement (aim 3).

Discussion

The Memory Support Intervention has been developed to be “transdiagnostic” (relevant to a broad range of mental disorders) and “pantreatment” (relevant to a broad range of types of treatment). This study protocol describes a “next step” in the treatment development process by testing the Memory Support Intervention for major depressive disorder (MDD) and cognitive therapy (CT). If the results are promising, future directions will test the applicability to other kinds of interventions and disorders and in other settings.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01790919. Registered on 6 October 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2276-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do improved patient recall and the provision of memory support enhance treatment adherence?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient adherence to psychosocial treatment is an important but understudied topic. The aim of this study was to examine whether better patient recall of treatment contents and therapist use of memory support (MS) were associated with better treatment adherence.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Participants were 48 individuals (mean age = 44.27 years, 29 females) with Major Depressive Disorder randomized to receive either Cognitive Therapy (CT) with an adjunctive Memory Support Intervention (CT + Memory Support) or CT-as-usual. Therapist and patient ratings of treatment adherence were collected during each treatment session. Patient recall was assessed at mid-treatment. Therapist use of MS was manually coded for a random selection of sessions.

RESULTS

Patient recall was significantly associated with better therapist and patient ratings of adherence. Therapist use of Application, a specific MS strategy, predicted higher therapist ratings of adherence. Attention Recruitment, another specific MS strategy, appeared to attenuate the positive impact of session number on patient ratings of adherence. Treatment groups, MS summary scores and other specific MS strategies were not significantly associated with adherence.

LIMITATIONS

The measure for treatment adherence is in the process of being formally validated. Results were based on small sample.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the importance of patient recall in treatment adherence. Although collectively the effects of MS on treatment adherence were not significant, the results support the use of certain specific MS strategy (i.e., application) as a potential pathway to improve treatment adherence. Larger-scale studies are needed to further examine these constructs.