Goal-orientated cognitive rehabilitation for dementias associated with Parkinson's disease―A pilot randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To examine the appropriateness and feasibility of cognitive rehabilitation for people with dementias associated with Parkinson's in a pilot randomised controlled study. METHODS: This was a single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial of goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation for dementias associated with Parkinson's. After goal setting, participants were randomised to cognitive rehabilitation (n = 10), relaxation therapy (n = 10), or treatment-as-usual (n = 9). Primary outcomes were ratings of goal attainment and satisfaction with goal attainment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, mood, cognition, health status, everyday functioning, and carers' ratings of goal attainment and their own quality of life and stress levels. Assessments were at 2 and 6 months following randomisation. RESULTS: At 2 months, cognitive rehabilitation was superior to treatment-as-usual and relaxation therapy for the primary outcomes of self-rated goal attainment (d = 1.63 and d = 1.82, respectively) and self-rated satisfaction with goal attainment (d = 2.04 and d = 1.84). At 6 months, cognitive rehabilitation remained superior to treatment-as-usual (d = 1.36) and relaxation therapy (d = 1.77) for self-rated goal attainment. Cognitive rehabilitation was superior to treatment as usual and/or relaxation therapy in a number of secondary outcomes at 2 months (mood, self-efficacy, social domain of quality of life, carers' ratings of participants' goal attainment) and at 6 months (delayed recall, health status, quality of life, carer ratings of participants' goal attainment). Carers receiving cognitive rehabilitation reported better quality of life, health status, and lower stress than those allocated to treatment-as-usual. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive rehabilitation is feasible and potentially effective for dementias associated with Parkinson's disease

Staff training and outreach support for Cognitive Stimulation Therapy and its implementation in practice:A cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that Cognitive Stimulation Therapy and maintenance Cognitive Stimulation Therapy are effective in mild to moderate dementia. There is, however, little evidence available for its implementation in practice and the impact of outreach support on the sustainability of the programme. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-one staff members were randomised from 63 dementia care settings between outreach support including an online forum, email, and telephone support, compared to usual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy control group. The primary outcome was average number of attendees to the Cognitive Stimulation Therapy and maintenance Cognitive Stimulation Therapy programmes. RESULTS: There was no difference in average number of attendees between the intervention and usual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy control groups for the Cognitive Stimulation Therapy (p = 0.82) or the maintenance Cognitive Stimulation Therapy programme (p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Outreach support does not affect the average number of people with dementia attending the Cognitive Stimulation Therapy or maintenance Cognitive Stimulation Therapy programme. Irrespective of outreach support, the programmes remain widely implemented and yield perceived benefits for people with dementia

REMCARE : pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial of reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family carers : effectiveness and economic analysis

Background Joint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care. Methods This multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person's home. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Included participants were community resident people with mild to moderate dementia (DSM-IV), who had a relative or other care-giver in regular contact, to act as informant and willing and able to participate in intervention. 71% carers were spouses. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5) were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control; 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks; monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers. Primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia (QoL-AD), psychological distress for the carer (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included: autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia; carer stress for the carer; mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both. Results The intention to treat analysis (ANCOVA) identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes (self-reported QoL-AD mean difference 0.07 (-1.21 to 1.35), F = 0.48, p = 0.53). Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a General Health Questionnaire-28 sub-scale at the ten month end-point (mean difference 1.25 (0.25 to 2.26), F = 8.28, p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested improved autobiographical memory, quality of life and relationship quality for people with dementia attending more reminiscence sessions, however carers attending more groups showed increased care-giving stress. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Potential limitations of the study include less than optimal attendance at the group sessions—only 57% of participants attended at least half of the intervention sessions over the 10 month period, and a higher rate of study withdrawal in the control group. Conclusions This trial does not support the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups. Possible beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned are offset by raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions

Group cognitive stimulation therapy versus usual care for people with intellectual disabilities and dementia (CST-IDD) in the UK: protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of dementia is almost five times higher in people with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population. However, evidence-based treatments for this population are lacking, as most randomised controlled trials for dementia interventions have not included people with intellectual disabilities. Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) has a robust evidence base in the general dementia population, consistently showing benefits to cognition, quality of life and being cost-effective. We are conducting a mixed-methods feasibility trial of group CST for people with intellectual disabilities and dementia, to determine if a future definitive randomised controlled trial is feasible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Fifty individuals with intellectual disabilities and dementia will be randomised to either the intervention arm (14 sessions of group CST plus treatment as usual) or the control arm (treatment as usual). Randomisation will occur after informed consent has been obtained and baseline assessments completed. Each arm will have 25 participants, with the intervention arm divided into five or more CST groups with three to five participants in each. The outcomes will be feasibility of recruitment, acceptability and adherence of the intervention, suitability of study outcome measures and feasibility of collecting resource use data. Quantitative and qualitative approaches, including semistructured interviews with group participants, carers and group facilitators, will be employed to assess these outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Essex REC (Ref: 21/EE/027) and the HRA ethical approval process through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS ID: 306 756). We plan to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals and conferences as well as provide feedback to funders, sponsors and study participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN88614460

Development of an item pool for a patient reported outcome measure of resilience for people living with dementia

Abstract Background and objectives Policies to support people living with dementia increasingly focus on strengths-based approaches, highlighting the importance of building resilience. This research responds to the lack of a suitable resilience measure for people with dementia. It develops a pool of items to inform a new measure of resilience for this population. Methods A conceptual model and associated data informed the item generation of the draft resilience measure. Regular meetings with professionals (n = 7) discussed response-scale formatting, content and face validity, leading to refinement and item reduction. Cognitive interviews with people living with dementia (n = 11) then examined the face and content validity of items and the suitability of response-scale formatting. These two phases informed subsequent revision and further item reduction of the resilience measure. Results The first item generation exercise led to 140 items. These were independently assessed by the professionals and this refinement reduced the measure to 63 items across 7 domains of the conceptual model (psychological strengths; practical approaches for adapting to life with dementia; continuing with hobbies, interests and activities; strong relationships with family and friends; peer support and education; participating in community activities; the role of professional support services). Cognitive interviews explored the 63 items with people living with dementia. Detailed feedback led to items removed due to difficulty with (a) understanding (N = 7); (b) answering (n = 11); (c) low preference for that item (n = 6); and (d) presence of a preferred item within a cluster of similar questions (n = 4). Items were amended to enhance clarity/conciseness (n = 19) leading to a final 37-item pool. Conclusion Established methods for measurement development included the expertise of people with dementia and led to the generation of a set of items for a new resilience measure that were understandable and acceptable to this target population. This 37-item pool reflects the conceptual understanding of resilience in dementia as being derived across individual, community and societal level resources

Development of an item pool for a patient reported outcome measure of resilience for people living with dementia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Policies to support people living with dementia increasingly focus on strengths-based approaches, highlighting the importance of building resilience. This research responds to the lack of a suitable resilience measure for people with dementia. It develops a pool of items to inform a new measure of resilience for this population. METHODS: A conceptual model and associated data informed the item generation of the draft resilience measure. Regular meetings with professionals (n = 7) discussed response-scale formatting, content and face validity, leading to refinement and item reduction. Cognitive interviews with people living with dementia (n = 11) then examined the face and content validity of items and the suitability of response-scale formatting. These two phases informed subsequent revision and further item reduction of the resilience measure. RESULTS: The first item generation exercise led to 140 items. These were independently assessed by the professionals and this refinement reduced the measure to 63 items across 7 domains of the conceptual model (psychological strengths; practical approaches for adapting to life with dementia; continuing with hobbies, interests and activities; strong relationships with family and friends; peer support and education; participating in community activities; the role of professional support services). Cognitive interviews explored the 63 items with people living with dementia. Detailed feedback led to items removed due to difficulty with (a) understanding (N = 7); (b) answering (n = 11); (c) low preference for that item (n = 6); and (d) presence of a preferred item within a cluster of similar questions (n = 4). Items were amended to enhance clarity/conciseness (n = 19) leading to a final 37-item pool. CONCLUSION: Established methods for measurement development included the expertise of people with dementia and led to the generation of a set of items for a new resilience measure that were understandable and acceptable to this target population. This 37-item pool reflects the conceptual understanding of resilience in dementia as being derived across individual, community and societal level resources

Can a mindfulness-informed intervention reduce aggressive behaviour in people with intellectual disabilities?:Protocol for a feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10–20 % of adults with intellectual disabilities engage in challenging behaviours such as aggression, destructiveness, and self-injury, which are often accompanied by feelings of anger. The inability to manage anger can reduce quality of life. For example, aggression is a strong predictor of out-of-area placements and is a risk variable for abuse. Recent research suggests that mindfulness-based therapies (specifically, Singh’s Soles of the Feet meditation) can help people with intellectual disabilities manage angry emotions, with resultant reductions in challenging behaviour. However, previous research has been single-case design studies, and no group studies have been published with people with intellectual disabilities and aggressive behaviour. METHODS/DESIGN: For this feasibility study, a UK protocol will be developed for use by health professionals within National Health Service (NHS) Intellectual Disability (ID) teams, based upon Singh’s Soles of the Feet manual. Twenty adults with intellectual disabilities and identified problems with anger control will be recruited and six sessions will be delivered by a trained ID clinician. The study will monitor participant’s aggressive behaviour, health-related quality of life, anxiety, depression, and use of support services (medication, hospital appointments etc.). These will be measured at three time points: (1) Baseline (within 2 weeks prior to the first session of the intervention), (2) 2 months post-baseline, and (3) 6 months post-baseline. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with participants, their carers, and the therapists who delivered the intervention. In order to help design an economic evaluation alongside a future full trial, we will cost the intervention and test the acceptability and validity of health economics measures to record resource use and health-related quality of life outcomes. DISCUSSION: The data from this study will inform the feasibility of the project protocol and intervention, which will help develop future research and to determine whether a larger, randomised controlled trial with concurrent economic evaluation is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UKCERN: 16743