An intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia: the Journeying through Dementia RCT

BACKGROUND

There are few effective interventions for dementia.

AIM

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention to promote self-management, independence and self-efficacy in people with early-stage dementia.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a randomised controlled trial of the Journeying through Dementia intervention compared with usual care, conduct an internal pilot testing feasibility, assess intervention delivery fidelity and undertake a qualitative exploration of participants' experiences.

DESIGN

A pragmatic two-arm individually randomised trial analysed by intention to treat.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 480 people diagnosed with mild dementia, with capacity to make informed decisions, living in the community and not participating in other studies, and 350 supporters whom they identified, from 13 locations in England, took part.

INTERVENTION

Those randomised to the Journeying through Dementia intervention (n = 241) were invited to take part in 12 weekly facilitated groups and four one-to-one sessions delivered in the community by secondary care staff, in addition to their usual care. The control group (n = 239) received usual care. Usual care included drug treatment, needs assessment and referral to appropriate services. Usual care at each site was recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months post randomisation, with higher scores representing higher quality of life. Secondary outcomes included resource use, psychological well-being, self-management, instrumental activities of daily living and health-related quality of life.

RANDOMISATION AND BLINDING

Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Staff conducting outcome assessments were blinded.

DATA SOURCES

Outcome measures were administered in participants' homes at baseline and at 8 and 12 months post randomisation. Interviews were conducted with participants, participating carers and interventionalists.

RESULTS

The mean Dementia-Related Quality of Life score at 8 months was 93.3 (standard deviation 13.0) in the intervention arm (n = 191) and 91.9 (standard deviation 14.6) in the control arm (n = 197), with a difference in means of 0.9 (95% confidence interval -1.2 to 3.0; p = 0.380) after adjustment for covariates. This effect size (0.9) was less than the 4 points defined as clinically meaningful. For other outcomes, a difference was found only for Diener's Flourishing Scale (adjusted mean difference 1.2, 95% confidence interval 0.1 to 2.3), in favour of the intervention (i.e. in a positive direction). The Journeying through Dementia intervention cost £608 more than usual care (95% confidence interval £105 to £1179) and had negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.003, 95% confidence interval -0.044 to 0.038). Therefore, the Journeying through Dementia intervention had a mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of -£202,857 (95% confidence interval -£534,733 to £483,739); however, there is considerable uncertainty around this. Assessed fidelity was good. Interviewed participants described receiving some benefit and a minority benefited greatly. However, negative aspects were also raised by a minority. Seventeen per cent of participants in the intervention arm and 15% of participants in the control arm experienced at least one serious adverse event. None of the serious adverse events were classified as related to the intervention.

LIMITATIONS

Study limitations include recruitment of an active population, delivery challenges and limitations of existing outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The Journeying through Dementia programme is not clinically effective, is unlikely to be cost-effective and cannot be recommended in its existing format.

FUTURE WORK

Research should focus on the creation of new outcome measures to assess well-being in dementia and on using elements of the intervention, such as enabling enactment in the community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN17993825.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Limitations in activities of daily living and support needs - Analysis of GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS

Being able to perform activities of daily living is an important component of a person's ability to function. If these activities are impaired, support is needed. Using data from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, we present how many people aged 55 and older living in private households in Germany experience limitations in activities of daily living. Severe limitations in basic (fundamental) activities (e.g. food intake) are reported by 5.8% of women and 3.7% of men. The proportion increases with age as 13.4% of women and 9.0% of men aged 80 and older experience limitations. Severe limitations of instrumental activities of daily living (e.g. grocery shopping) are rather rare in participants less than 80 years of age. But at age 80 and older the proportion rises to 35.9% of women and 21.0% of men. A total of 68.1% of afflicted women and 57.5% of men receive help and support related to limitations of basic activities. Women are also more likely to report a lack of support (48.8% vs. 43.2%). The situation is slightly better with regard to instrumental activities. The results of GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS show in which areas of daily life older and very old people are impaired, give an impression of who is affected particularly strongly and indicate where support services are insufficient. As such, these results provide clues as to where support can be provided to enable older people to keep living in their own homes for a long time.

Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT

BACKGROUND

Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

SETTING

This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview.

RESULTS

Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group - control group difference: mean -£909, 95% confidence interval -£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group - control group difference: mean -£3545; 95% confidence interval -£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval -0.204 to -0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks.

LIMITATIONS

Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events.

CONCLUSIONS

A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants' health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants' EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire.

FUTURE WORK

Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation for early-stage Alzheimer's and related dementias: the GREAT RCT

BACKGROUND

Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is an individualised, person-centred intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia that addresses the impact of cognitive impairment on everyday functioning.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not CR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease or vascular or mixed dementia, and their carers.

DESIGN

This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared CR with treatment as usual (TAU). Following a baseline assessment and goal-setting to identify areas of everyday functioning that could be improved or better managed, participants were randomised (1 : 1) via secure web access to an independent randomisation centre to receive either TAU or CR and followed up at 3 and 9 months post randomisation.

SETTING

Community.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition, diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or vascular or mixed dementia, had mild to moderate cognitive impairment (Mini Mental State Examination score of ≥ 18 points), were stable on medication if prescribed, and had a family carer who was willing to contribute. The exclusion criteria were people with a history of brain injury or other neurological disorder and an inability to speak English. To achieve adequate power, we needed 350 people to complete the trial, with 175 people in each trial arm.

INTERVENTION

Cognitive rehabilitation consisted of 10 therapy sessions over 3 months, followed by four maintenance sessions over 6 months, delivered in participants' homes. The therapists were nine occupational therapists and one nurse.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported goal attainment at 3 months. Goal attainment was also assessed at 9 months. Carers provided independent ratings of goal attainment at both time points. The secondary outcomes were participant quality of life, mood, self-efficacy and cognition, and carer stress, health status and quality of life. The assessments at 3 and 9 months were conducted by researchers who were blind to the participants' group allocation.

RESULTS

A total of 475 participants were randomised (CR arm, n = 239; TAU arm, n = 236), 427 participants (90%) completed the trial and 426 participants were analysed (CR arm, n = 208, TAU arm, n = 218). At 3 months, there were statistically significant large positive effects for participant-rated goal attainment [mean change in the CR arm: 2.57; mean change in the TAU arm: 0.86; Cohen'sd = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.19], corroborated by carer ratings (Cohen'sd = 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34). These effects were maintained at 9 months for both the participant ratings (Cohen's d = 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and the carer ratings (Cohen's d = 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.20). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. In the cost-utility analyses, there was no evidence of cost-effectiveness in terms of gains in the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the person with dementia (measured using the DEMentia Quality Of Life questionnaire utility score) or the QALYs of the carer (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version) from either cost perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, by reference to the primary outcome of participant-rated goal attainment, CR was cost-effective from both the health and social care perspective and the societal perspective at willingness-to-pay values of £2500 and above for improvement in the goal attainment measure. There was no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the self-efficacy measure (the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale) from either cost perspective.

LIMITATIONS

Possible limitations arose from the non-feasibility of using observational outcome measures, the lack of a general measure of functional ability and the exclusion of people without a carer or with rarer forms of dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive rehabilitation is clinically effective in enabling people with early-stage dementia to improve their everyday functioning in relation to individual goals targeted in the therapy sessions.

FUTURE WORK

Next steps will focus on the implementation of CR into NHS and social care services and on extending the approach to people with rarer forms of dementia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21027481.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Association of Heel Bone Mineral Density With Incident Disability and Mortality in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Age‐related bone loss is common in older adults. However, the association of low bone mass with incident disability and mortality is not well established. A sample of 738 participants in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP) was evaluated at baseline for bone mineral density (BMD) using quantitative ultrasound at the calcaneus. An annual interview assessed basic activities of daily living (BADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), mobility disability, and history of hip fracture. The associations between baseline BMD and risk of death; incident BADL, IADL, and mobility disability; and hip fracture were investigated using Cox hazard models, adjusting for age, sex, education, race, and body mass index (BMI). The robustness of our findings was evaluated by adjusting for confounding factors and health conditions including joint pain, musculoskeletal medications, smoking status, motor function, global cognition, falls, cardiovascular events, and diabetes. Participants were on average (mean ± SD) 80.9 ± 7.0 years old, 72% female, and 3.8% black, with a baseline BMI of 27.3 ± 5.4 kg/m², and a baseline of BMD of 0.44 ± 0.14 g/cm². In models adjusted for age, sex, education, race, and BMI, lower BMD was associated with a higher rate of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–1.33), incident BADL disability (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05–1.37), and hip fracture (HR 2.57; 95% CI, 1.72–3.82), but not of IADL disability (HR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85–1.17) or mobility disability (HR 1.13; 95% CI, 0.97–1.32). The association between BMD and mortality was not significant in fully adjusted models, but the BMD and BADL associations remained significant in models adjusting for both demographic variables and BMD‐modifying health conditions. BMD is associated with incident disability in older adults. © 2020 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Limitations in activities of daily living in old age in Germany and the EU - Results from the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) 2

The health status of older people in Germany can be compared with the health of older people in other European Union (EU) Member States using data on the distribution of limitations in activities of daily living. This concept covers basic limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) such as eating, as well as limitations in instrumental activities of daily living (iADL) such as shopping and managing finances. The second wave of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS 2) collected data on five ADLs and seven iADLs for people aged 65 or above. An ADL or iADL limitation was defined if a participant reported at least a lot of difficulty in at least one ADL or iADL, respectively. On average, 8.4% of the EU population reported an ADL limitation, with 25.2% reporting an iADL limitation. However, prevalences vary widely between EU Member States and are lower in Germany than the EU average (ADL limitation 6.3%, iADL limitation 14.0%). In general, women, people aged 75 or above, and lower education groups have a higher prevalence of ADL and iADL limitations.