Search

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The projected increase in global dementia rates is expected to affect LMICs disproportionately. However, the majority of global dementia care costs occur in high-income countries (HICs), with dementia research predominantly focusing on HICs. This imbalance necessitates LMIC-focused research to ensure that characterization of dementia accurately reflects the involvement and specificities of diverse populations. Development of effective preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches for dementia in LMICs requires targeted, personalized, and harmonized efforts. Our article represents timely discussions at the 2022 Symposium on Dementia and Brain Aging in LMICs that identified the foremost opportunities to advance dementia research, differential diagnosis, use of neuropsychometric tools, awareness, and treatment options. We highlight key topics discussed at the meeting and provide future recommendations to foster a more equitable landscape for dementia prevention, diagnosis, care, policy, and management in LMICs. HIGHLIGHTS: Two-thirds of persons with dementia live in LMICs, yet research and costs are skewed toward HICs. LMICs expect dementia prevalence to more than double, accompanied by socioeconomic disparities. The 2022 Symposium on Dementia in LMICs addressed advances in research, diagnosis, prevention, and policy. The Nairobi Declaration urges global action to enhance dementia outcomes in LMICs.

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: Low social participation is a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive deterioration in the general population and related to lower quality of life (QoL). We aimed to find out whether social participation is linked to cognitive deterioration and QoL for people with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disability. Method: We used data from the National Child Development Study, consisting of people born during one week in 1958, to compare midlife social participation in people with mild intellectual disability, borderline intellectual functioning, and without intellectual impairment. We defined social participation as 1. confiding/emotional support from the closest person and social network contact frequency at age 44, and 2. confiding relationships with anyone at age 50. We then assessed the extent to which social participation mediated the association between childhood intellectual functioning and cognition and QoL at age 50. Results: 14,094 participants completed cognitive tests at age 11. People with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disability had more social contact with relatives and confiding/emotional support from their closest person, but fewer social contacts with friends and confiding relationships with anyone than those without intellectual disability. Having a confiding relationship partially mediated the association at age 50 between IQ and cognition (6.4%) and QoL (27.4%) for people with borderline intellectual functioning. Conclusion: We found adults with intellectual disability have positive family relationships but fewer other relationships. Even at the age of 50, confiding relationships may protect cognition for people with borderline intellectual functioning and are important for QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A timely diagnosis of dementia can be beneficial for providing good support, treatment, and care, but the diagnostic rate remains unknown and is probably low. Objective: To determine the dementia diagnostic rate and to describe factors associated with diagnosed dementia. Methods: This registry linkage study linked information on research-based study diagnoses of all-cause dementia and subtypes of dementias, Alzheimer's disease, and related dementias, in 1,525 participants from a cross-sectional population-based study (HUNT4 70+) to dementia registry diagnoses in both primary-care and hospital registries. Factors associated with dementia were analyzed with multiple logistic regression. Results: Among those with research-based dementia study diagnoses in HUNT4 70+, 35.6% had a dementia registry diagnosis in the health registries. The diagnostic rate in registry diagnoses was 19.8% among home-dwellers and 66.0% among nursing home residents. Of those with a study diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, 35.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.6–39.0) had a registry diagnosis; for those with a study diagnosis of vascular dementia, the rate was 25.8% (95% CI 19.2–33.3) and for Lewy body dementias and frontotemporal dementia, the diagnosis rate was 63.0% (95% CI 48.7–75.7) and 60.0% (95% CI 43.3–75.1), respectively. Factors associated with having a registry diagnosis included dementia in the family, not being in the youngest or oldest age group, higher education, more severe cognitive decline, and greater need for help with activities of daily living. Conclusions: Undiagnosed dementia is common, as only one-third of those with dementia are diagnosed. Diagnoses appear to be made at a late stage of dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sleep disturbance is a prevalent condition among people living with dementia (PLwD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Its assessment and management within primary care is complex because of the comorbidities, older age, and cognitive impairment typical of this patient group. Aim: To explore how primary care clinicians assess, understand, and manage sleep disturbance for PLwD or MCI; if and why such initiatives work; and how people and their carers experience sleep disturbance and its treatment. Design and setting: A realist review of existing literature conducted in 2022. Method: Six bibliographic databases were searched. Context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOCs) were developed and refined. Results: In total, 60 records were included from 1869 retrieved hits and 19 CMOCs were developed. Low awareness of and confidence in the treatment of sleep disturbance among primary care clinicians and patients, combined with time and resource constraints, meant that identifying sleep disturbance was difficult and not prioritised. Medication was perceived by clinicians and patients as the primary management tool, resulting in inappropriate or long-term prescription. Rigid nursing routines in care homes were reportedly not conducive to good-quality sleep. Conclusion: In primary care, sleep disturbance among PLwD or MCI is not adequately addressed. Over-reliance on medication, underutilisation of non-pharmacological strategies, and inflexible care home routines were reported as a result of low confidence in sleep management and resource constraints. This does not constitute effective and person-centred care. Future work should consider ways to tailor the assessment and management of sleep disturbance to the needs of individuals and their informal carers without overstretching services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This systematic review identified key components of risk assessment for people with dementia, examined attitudes toward risk identification and risk assessment, and appraised existing risk assessment tools. Methods: Systematic searches of five databases on two platforms (EBSCO, OVID) and gray literature databases (Open Grey, Base) were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion based on predetermined eligibility criteria and quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were tabulated and synthesized using thematic synthesis. Results: Our review found people with dementia, their family carers, and healthcare professionals differed in how risk is conceptualized, with views being shaped by media perceptions, personal experiences, socio-cultural influences, dementia knowledge, and dementia severity. We found that mobilization (causing falls inside and getting lost outside) is the most frequently identified risk factor. Our findings show people with dementia are generally risk-tolerant, while healthcare professionals may adopt risk-averse approaches because of organizational requirements. We found factors that disrupt daily routines, living and caring arrangements, medication management, and unclear care pathways contribute toward adverse risk events. We discovered that most studies about risk and risk assessment scales did not consider insight of the person with dementia into risks although this is important for the impact of a risk. No risk instrument identified had sufficient evidence that it was useful. Conclusion: Accurate risk assessment and effective communication strategies that include the perspectives of people with dementia are needed to enable risk-tolerant practice. No risk instrument to date was shown to be widely acceptable and useful in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) intervention is effective and cost‐effective in supporting family carers of people with dementia. It is currently not available to all eligible carers in England. What would be the impacts on service costs and carer health‐related quality of life if START was provided to all eligible carers in England, currently and in future? Methods: Effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness data from a previously conducted randomised controlled trial were combined with current and future projections of numbers of people with newly diagnosed dementia to estimate overall and component costs and health‐related quality of life outcomes between 2015 (base year for projections) and 2040. Results: Scaling‐up START requires investments increasing annually but would lead to significant savings in health and social care costs. Family carers of people with dementia would experience improvements in mental health and quality of life, with clinical effects lasting at least 6 years. Scaling up the START intervention to eligible carers was estimated to cost £9.4 million in 2020, but these costs would lead to annual savings of £68 million, and total annual quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 1247. Although the costs of START would increase to £19.8 million in 2040, savings would rise to £142.7 million and Quality adjusted life years gained to 1883. Conclusions: Scaling‐up START for family carers of people with dementia in England would improve the lives of family carers and reduce public sector costs. Family carers play a vital part in dementia care; evidence‐based interventions that help them to maintain this role, such as START, should be available across the country. Key points: Family carers are the mainstay of dementia support across the world.The STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) intervention has previously been shown to be clinically and cost‐effective.Making START available to all eligible family carers in England, both currently and projected to 2040, would lead to significant savings in health and social care service costs, amounting to £143 million in 2040.Improvements in the mental health and quality of life of carers would also be substantial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]