Search

BackgroundMost people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months.MethodsA randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator.DiscussionIncreasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

Background and objectivesThe Covid-19 pandemic reduced access to social activities and routine health care that are central to dementia prevention. We developed a group-based, video-call, cognitive well-being intervention; and investigated its acceptability and feasibility; exploring through participants' accounts how the intervention was experienced and used in the pandemic context.Research design and methodWe recruited adults aged 60+ years with memory concerns (without dementia). Participants completed baseline assessments and qualitative interviews/focus groups before and after the 10-week intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis.Results12/17 participants approached completed baseline assessments, attended 100/120 (83.3%) intervention sessions and met 140/170 (82.4%) of goals set. Most had not used video calling before. In the thematic analysis, our overarching theme was social connectedness. Three sub-themes were as follows: Retaining independence and social connectedness: social connectedness could not be at the expense of independence; Adapting social connectedness in the pandemic: participants strived to compensate for previous social connectedness as the pandemic reduced support networks; Managing social connections within and through the intervention: although there were tensions, for example, between sharing of achievements feeling supportive and competitive, participants engaged with various lifestyle changes; social connections supported group attendance and implementation of lifestyle changes.Discussion and implicationsOur intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver by group video-call. We argue that dementia prevention is both an individual and societal concern. For more vulnerable populations, messages that lifestyle change can help memory should be communicated alongside supportive, relational approaches to enabling lifestyle changes.

Objectives: In India, globalisation is purported to have contributed to shifting family structures and changing attitudes to long‐term care (LTC) facility use. We investigated the attitudes to and usage frequency of LTC in India. Methods: We conducted secondary analyses of: (a) The Moving Pictures India Project qualitative interviews with 19 carers for people with dementia and 25 professionals, collected in 2022, exploring attitudes to LTC; and (b) The Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI) 2017–2018, cross‐sectional survey of a randomised probability sample of Indian adults aged 45+ living in private households. Results: We identified three themes from qualitative data: (1) LTC as a last resort, describes how LTC could be acceptable if care at home was "impossible" due to the person's medical condition or unavailability of the family carer, for example, if family members lived overseas or interstate. (2) Social expectations of care at home from family members and paid carers and; (3) Limited availability of LTC facilities in India, especially in rural localities, and the financial barriers to their use. Of 73,396 LASI participants, 40 were considering moving to LTC; 18,281 had a parent alive, of whom 9 reported that their father, and 16 that their mother, lived in LTC. LTC use was rare. While a third of participants with a living parent lived in urban areas, 14/24 of those with a parent in LTC lived in an urban area, supporting our qualitative findings that LTC is mainly accessed in urban areas. Conclusions: Preference for intergenerational community care combined with limited availability and societal stigma contribute to low rates of LTC use among Indian families. Future social policies should consider how to plan for greater equity in strengthening care at home and in the community, and bolstering respite and LTC services as a last resort. Key points: In India, the demand for long‐term care (LTC) facilities is low, with only a small number of people residing or considering residing in one. Most people prefer intergenerational community care at home.Contrary to the population as a while, more people who had a parent living in LTC were residing in urban versus rural areas; in qualitative interviews, family carers and healthcare professionals of people with dementia reported having less access to LTC in rural areas, which may be linked to increased financial challenges and limited resources for more specialised care.Given the strong preference for care at home over LTC, initiatives are needed to increase community resources for family carers of older adults with unrecognised and undiagnosed conditions such as dementia. Additionally, there should be improved access to LTC for those with fewer financial resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individualised goal-setting outcome measures can be a useful way of reflecting people living with dementia and family carers' differing priorities regarding quality-of-life domains in the highly heterogeneous symptomatology of the disease. Evaluating goal-setting measures is challenging, and there is limited evidence for their psychometric properties. Aim: (1) To describe what goal-setting outcomes have been used in this population; (2) To evaluate their validity, reliability, and feasibility in RCTs. Method: We systematically reviewed studies that utilised goal-setting outcome measures for people living dementia or their family carers. We adapted a risk of bias and quality rating system based on the COSMIN guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties of outcomes when used within RCTs. Results: Thirty studies meeting inclusion criteria used four different goal-setting outcome measures: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), Bangor Goal Setting Interview (BGSI), Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and Individually Prioritized Problems Assessment (IPPA); other papers have reported study-specific goal-setting attainment systems. Only GAS has been used as an outcome over periods greater than 9 months (up to a year). Within RCTs there was moderate quality evidence for sufficient content validity and construct validity for GAS, COPM and the BGSI. Reliability was only assessed in one RCT (using BGSI); in which two raters reviewed interview transcripts to rate goals with excellent inter-rater reliability. Feasibility was reported as good across the measures with a low level of missing data. Conclusion: We found moderate quality evidence for good content and construct validity and feasibility of GAS, BGSI and COPM. While more evidence of reliability of these measures is needed, we recommend that future trials consider using individualised goal setting measures, to report the effect of interventions on outcomes that are most meaningful to people living with dementia and their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-Family, a 6–8 session manualised, individually tailored, modular intervention supporting independence at home for people with dementia; and explore participants' and facilitators' experiences of the intervention. In this single group multi-site feasibility study, trained, supervised non-clinically qualified graduates (facilitators) delivered NIDUS-Family to family carer and people living with dementia dyads. We recruited participants from GP practices and memory services in London and Bradford. We completed quantitative outcomes pre- and post-intervention; and conducted qualitative interviews with participants and facilitators. Our pre-specified main outcomes were proportion of potential participants approached who agreed to participate, intervention adherence and acceptability to family carers, and facilitator fidelity to the manual. We recruited 16 dyads (57% of those approached); 12 (75%) completed the intervention. Of 12 participants rating intervention acceptability, 9 (75%) agreed or strongly agreed that it had helped; 2 (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed and 1 (8%) disagreed. Mean facilitator fidelity was high (81.5%). Dyads set on average 3.9 goals; these most commonly related to getting out and about and increasing activity/hobby participation (n = 10); carer wellbeing (n = 6), managing physical complaints (n = 6); meal preparation/cooking (n = 5); and reducing irritability, frustration or aggression (n = 5). Almost all secondary outcomes changed in a direction indicating improvement. In our qualitative analysis we identified three overarching themes; relationships facilitate change, goal-focused versus manualised approach and balancing the needs of carers and people with dementia. NIDUS-Family was feasible and acceptable to participants. Following refinements, testing in a pragmatic trial is underway. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Person-centered goals capture individual priorities in personal contexts. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) has been used in drug trials involving people living with dementia (PLWD) but GAS has been characterized as difficult to incorporate into trials and clinical practice. We used GAS in a trial of New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study (NIDUS)-family, a manualized care and support intervention, as the primary outcome and to tailor the interventions to goals set. We aimed to assess the feasibility and content of baseline goal-setting., Methods: We developed training for nonclinical facilitators to set individualized GAS goals remotely with PLWD and family carer dyads, or carers alone, in the intervention trial, during the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative content analysis of the goals set explored participants' priorities and unmet needs, to consider how existing GAS goal domains might be extended in a psychosocial intervention trial context., Results: Eleven facilitators were successfully trained to set and score GAS goals. A total of 313/328 (95%) participants were able to collaboratively set three to five goals with the facilitators. Of these, 302 randomized participating dyads set 1043 (mean 3.5, range 3 to 5) goals. We deductively coded 719 (69%) goals into five existing GAS domains (mood, behavior, self-care, cognition, and instrumental activities of daily living); 324 (31%) goals were inductively coded into four new domains: carer break, carer mood, carer behavior, and carer sleep. The most frequently set goals pertained to social support. There was little variation in types of goals set based on the context of who set them or level of pandemic restrictions in place., Discussion: It is feasible for people without clinical training to set GAS holistic goals for PLWD and family carers in the community. GAS has potential to facilitate personalization of care and support interventions, such as NIDUS-family, and facilitate the roll out of more personalized care., Highlights: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) can capture meaningful priorities of people with dementia and their family carers.A psychosocial intervention RCT used GAS as the primary outcome measure and goals were set collaboratively by non-clinically trained facilitators.The findings underscore the feasibility of using GAS as an outcome measure with this population.The content analysis findings unveiled the diversity in experiences and priorities of the study participants.GAS has the potential to support the implementation of more person-centred approaches to dementia care., Competing Interests: K.R. is cofounder of Ardea Outcomes (DGI Clinical until 2021), which in the past 3 years has had contracts with pharma and device manufacturers (Danone, Hollister, INmune, Novartis, Takeda) on individualized outcome measurement. In 2020, on behalf of Ardea Outcomes, K.R. attended an advisory board meeting with Nutricia on dementia. The other authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. All author disclosures are available in the supporting information., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Introduction: In the first randomised controlled trial of a dementia training and support intervention in UK homecare agencies, we aimed to assess: acceptability of our co-designed, manualised training, delivered by non-clinical facilitators; outcome completion feasibility; and costs for a future trial., Methods: This cluster-randomised (2:1) single-blind, feasibility trial involved English homecare agencies. Intervention arm agency staff were offered group videocall sessions: 6 over 3 months, then monthly for 3 months (NIDUS-professional). Family carers (henceforth carers) and clients with dementia (dyads) were offered six to eight complementary, individual intervention sessions (NIDUS-Family). We collected potential trial measures as secondary outcomes remotely at baseline and 6 months: HCW (homecare worker) Work-related Strain Inventory (WRSI), Sense of Competence (SoC); proxy-rated Quality of Life (QOL), Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (DAD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and Homecare Satisfaction (HCS)., Results: From December 2021 to September 2022, we met agency (4 intervention, 2 control) and HCWs (n = 62) recruitment targets and recruited 16 carers and 16/60 planned clients. We met a priori progression criteria for adherence (≥4/6 sessions: 29/44 [65.9%,95% confidence interval (CI): 50.1,79.5]), HCW or carer proxy-outcome completion (15/16 (93.8% [69.8,99.8]) and proceeding with adaptation for HCWs outcome completion (46/63 (73.0% [CI: 60.3,83.4]). Delivery of NIDUS-Professional costs was £6,423 (£137 per eligible client). WRSI scores decreased and SoC increased at follow-up, with no significant between-group differences. For intervention arm proxy-rated outcomes, carer-rated QOL increased, HCW-rated was unchanged; carer and HCW-rated NPI decreased; DAD decreased (greater disability) and HCS was unchanged., Conclusion: A pragmatic trial is warranted; we will consider using aggregated, agency-level client outcomes, including neuropsychiatric symptoms., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)