Explore the vast range of titles available.

Agitation is a common, challenging symptom affecting large numbers of people with dementia and impacting on quality of life (QoL). There is an urgent need for evidence-based, cost-effective psychosocial interventions to improve these outcomes, particularly in the absence of safe, effective pharmacological therapies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a person-centred care and psychosocial intervention incorporating an antipsychotic review, WHELD, on QoL, agitation, and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes, and to determine its cost. This was a randomised controlled cluster trial conducted between 1 January 2013 and 30 September 2015 that compared the WHELD intervention with treatment as usual (TAU) in people with dementia living in 69 UK nursing homes, using an intention to treat analysis. All nursing homes allocated to the intervention received staff training in person-centred care and social interaction and education regarding antipsychotic medications (antipsychotic review), followed by ongoing delivery through a care staff champion model. The primary outcome measure was QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy). Secondary outcomes were agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version [NPI-NH]), antipsychotic use, global deterioration (Clinical Dementia Rating), mood (Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia), unmet needs (Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly), mortality, quality of interactions (Quality of Interactions Scale [QUIS]), pain (Abbey Pain Scale), and cost. Costs were calculated using cost function figures compared with usual costs. In all, 847 people were randomised to WHELD or TAU, of whom 553 completed the 9-month randomised controlled trial. The intervention conferred a statistically significant improvement in QoL (DEMQOL-Proxy Z score 2.82, p = 0.0042; mean difference 2.54, SEM 0.88; 95% CI 0.81, 4.28; Cohen's D effect size 0.24). There were also statistically significant benefits in agitation (CMAI Z score 2.68, p = 0.0076; mean difference 4.27, SEM 1.59; 95% CI -7.39, -1.15; Cohen's D 0.23) and overall neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI-NH Z score 3.52, p < 0.001; mean difference 4.55, SEM 1.28; 95% CI -7.07,-2.02; Cohen's D 0.30). Benefits were greatest in people with moderately severe dementia. There was a statistically significant benefit in positive care interactions as measured by QUIS (19.7% increase, SEM 8.94; 95% CI 2.12, 37.16, p = 0.03; Cohen's D 0.55). There were no statistically significant differences between WHELD and TAU for the other outcomes. A sensitivity analysis using a pre-specified imputation model confirmed statistically significant benefits in DEMQOL-Proxy, CMAI, and NPI-NH outcomes with the WHELD intervention. Antipsychotic drug use was at a low stable level in both treatment groups, and the intervention did not reduce use. The WHELD intervention reduced cost compared to TAU, and the benefits achieved were therefore associated with a cost saving. The main limitation was that antipsychotic review was based on augmenting processes within care homes to trigger medical review and did not in this study involve proactive primary care education. An additional limitation was the inherent challenge of assessing QoL in this patient group. These findings suggest that the WHELD intervention confers benefits in terms of QoL, agitation, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, albeit with relatively small effect sizes, as well as cost saving in a model that can readily be implemented in nursing homes. Future work should consider how to facilitate sustainability of the intervention in this setting. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62237498.

Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: a) Design and conduct challenges with established parallel-group CRT designs,b) Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers to implementation of open-cohort CRTs,c) Methods for minimising, and investigating the impact of, bias in open-cohort CRTs. Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.

IntroductionDespite major advances in the field of neuroscience over the last three decades, the quality of assessments available to patients with memory problems in later life has barely changed. At the same time, a large proportion of dementia biomarker research is conducted in selected research samples that often poorly reflect the demographics of the population of patients who present to memory clinics. The Oxford Brain Health Clinic (BHC) is a newly developed clinical assessment service with embedded research in which all patients are offered high-quality clinical and research assessments, including MRI, as standard.Methods and analysisHere we describe the BHC protocol, including aligning our MRI scans with those collected in the UK Biobank. We evaluate rates of research consent for the first 108 patients (data collection ongoing) and the ability of typical psychiatry-led NHS memory-clinic patients to tolerate both clinical and research assessments.Ethics and disseminationOur ethics and consenting process enables patients to choose the level of research participation that suits them. This generates high rates of consent, enabling us to populate a research database with high-quality data that will be disseminated through a national platform (the Dementias Platform UK data portal).

Background Psychosocial interventions offer opportunities to improve care for people with dementia in care homes. However, implementation is often led by staff who are not well prepared for the role. Some interventions use external experts to support staff. However little is known about external expert, care home staff and manager perceptions of such support. This paper addresses this gap. Methods Multi-methods study within a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM). Interviews were conducted with six external experts who also completed questionnaires, 17 care home managers and 25 care home staff responsible for DCM implementation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and template analysis. Results Three themes were identified: the need for expert support, practicalities of support and broader impacts of providing support. Expert support was vital for successful DCM implementation, although the five-days provided was felt to be insufficient. Some homes felt the support was inflexible and did not consider their individual needs. Practical challenges of experts being located at a geographical distance from the care homes, limited when and how support was available. Experts gained knowledge they were able to then apply in delivering DCM training. Experts were not able to accurately predict which homes would be able to implement DCM independently in future cycles. Conclusions An external expert may form a key component of successful implementation of psychosocial interventions in care home settings. Future research should explore optimal use of the expert role.

Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is an evidence-based, group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia, and it has a positive impact on cognition and quality of life. CST has been culturally adapted for use globally. It was developed as a face-to-face intervention but has recently been adapted for online delivery. In this study, we aimed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of online or virtual CST (vCST) delivery in India and Brazil, emphasizing barriers and facilitators to implementation. A single-group, multisite, mixed methods, feasibility study was conducted, with nested qualitative interviews. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, attendance, attrition, acceptability, and outcome measure completion. Exploratory pre- and postintervention measures, including cognition and quality of life, were assessed. Qualitative interviews were conducted with people with dementia, family caregivers, and group and organizational leaders following intervention delivery, and the data were analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. A total of 17 vCST group sessions with 59 participants were conducted for 7 weeks, with 53% (31/59) of participants attending all 14 sessions. Attrition rate was 7% (4/59), and outcome measure completion rate at follow-up was 68% (40/59). Interviews took place with 36 stakeholders. vCST was acceptable to participants and group leaders and enabled vital access to services during pandemic restrictions. While online services broadened geographic access, challenges emerged concerning inadequate computer literacy, poor technology access, and establishing interpersonal connections online. Exploratory, uncontrolled analyses indicated positive trends in quality of life but negative trends in cognition and activities of daily living, but these results were not statistically significant. vCST demonstrated feasibility and acceptability, serving as a crucial resource during the pandemic but raised challenges related to technology access, computer literacy, and long-term implementation. The study highlights the potential of vCST while emphasizing ongoing development and solutions to address implementation challenges.

Good practice guidelines state that a psychological intervention should usually precede pharmacotherapy, but there are no data evaluating the feasibility of psychological interventions used in this way. At the first stage of a randomized blinded placebo-controlled trial, 318 patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) with clinically significant agitated behavior were treated in an open design with a psychological intervention (brief psychosocial therapy [BPST]) for 4 weeks, preceding randomization to pharmacotherapy. The therapy involved social interaction, personalized music, or removal of environmental triggers. Overall, 318 patients with AD completed BPST with an improvement of 5.6 points on the total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI; mean [SD], 63.3 [16.0] to 57.7 [18.4], t = 4.8, df = 317, p < 0.0001). Therapy worksheets were completed in six of the eight centers, with the key elements of the intervention delivered according to the manual for >95% of patients. More detailed evaluation of outcome was completed for the 198 patients with AD from these centers, who experienced a mean improvement of 6.6 points on the total CMAI (mean [SD], 62.2 [14.3] to 55.6 [15.8], t = 6.5, df = 197, p < 0.0001). Overall, 43% of participants achieved a 30% improvement in their level of agitation. The specific attributable benefits of BPST cannot be determined from an open trial. However, the BPST therapy was feasible and was successfully delivered according to an operationalized manual. The encouraging outcome indicates the need for a randomized controlled trial of BPST.

Psychosocial interventions can improve behaviour and mood in people with dementia, but it is unclear how to maximise their effectiveness or acceptability in residential settings. To understand what underlies the successful implementation of psychosocial interventions in care homes. Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. The synthesis of 39 qualitative papers revealed that beneficial psychosocial interventions met the needs of people with dementia to connect with others, make a meaningful contribution and reminisce. Successful implementation rested on the active engagement of staff and family and the continuing provision of tailored interventions and support. This necessitated staff time, and raised issues around priorities and risk, but ultimately helped redefine staff attitudes towards residents and the caregiving role. The findings from the meta-synthesis can help to inform the development and evaluation of psychosocial interventions in care homes and support their widespread implementation in clinical settings.

The aim was to provide evidence of mortality and community care costs of people living in care homes and to investigate its association with mental health based on the Mental Health Clustering Tool (MHCT). In an observational study, 5,782 residents living in 104 care homes were followed from 2014 to 2016. Residents were categorised into four groups using the MCHT: three with mental health conditions, ‘non-psychotic’, ‘psychotic’ or ‘organic’; and one without mental health conditions, ‘non-clustered’. Generalised estimating equations were used to explore associations between mean community care costs over 6 months per patient and the clustering of residents into the four groups. Differences in survival rates of residents were plotted using Kaplan–Meier curves and tested with the log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. Community care costs were similar among residents with dementia (£431) and without mental health conditions (£407), while costs were higher among residents with non-psychotic (£762) and psychotic (£1,724) mental health conditions. After adjusting for patient and care home characteristics, residents with dementia were 30 per cent less likely to die compared with residents without mental health conditions. Similarly, residents with psychotic conditions and residents with non-psychotic conditions were 25 and 20 per cent less likely to die, respectively, than residents without mental health conditions. The MHCT seems to provide an informative stratification of care home residents with regards to survival and community care use.

Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.

Two accepted designs exist for parallel-group cluster-randomised trials (CRTs). Closed-cohort designs follow the same individuals over time with a single recruitment period before randomisation, but face challenges in settings with high attrition. (Repeated) cross-sectional designs recruit at one or more timepoints before and/or after randomisation, collecting data from different individuals present in the cluster at these timepoints, but are unsuitable for assessment of individual change over time. An 'open-cohort' design allows individual follow-up with recruitment before and after cluster-randomisation, but little literature exists on acceptability to inform their use in CRTs. To document the views and experiences of expert trialists to identify: Qualitative consultation via two expert workshops including triallists (n = 24) who had worked on CRTs over a range of settings. Workshop transcripts were analysed using Descriptive Thematic Analysis utilising inductive and deductive coding. Two central organising concepts were developed. Design and conduct challenges with established CRT designs confirmed that current CRT designs are unable to deal with many of the complex research and intervention circumstances found in some trial settings (e.g. care homes). Perceptions of potential benefits and barriers of open cohort designs included themes on: approaches to recruitment; data collection; analysis; minimising/investigating the impact of bias; and how open-cohort designs might address or present CRT design challenges. Open-cohort designs were felt to provide a solution for some of the challenges current CRT designs present in some settings. Open-cohort CRT designs hold promise for addressing the challenges associated with standard CRT designs. Research is needed to provide clarity around definition and guidance on application.