Advanced nursing practice and interprofessional dementia care (InDePendent): study protocol for a multi-center, cluster-randomized, controlled, interventional trial

Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics of People Living with Dementia and Their Associations with Unmet Healthcare Needs: Insights from the Baseline Assessment of the InDePendent Study

Background

The healthcare needs of People living with Dementia (PlwD) (such as Alzheimer's disease) are often unmet. Information about the needs of community-dwelling PlwD and their association with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics is needed to fill the knowledge gap regarding factors influencing unmet needs among PlwD and to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment to develop tailored interventions.

Objective

To describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the InDePendent study population with particular reference to determinants of unmet needs.

Methods

We analyzed baseline data of the multi-centre cluster-randomized controlled trial (InDePendent) using descriptive statistics to describe patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and Poisson regression models to predict unmet needs, separated by sex. Data were collected personally via face-to-face interviews.

Results

Most of the n = 417 participating PlwD were mild to moderately cognitively impaired, were not depressed, had an average of 10.8 diagnoses, took 6.7 medications, and had, on average, 2.4 unmet needs (62% of PlwD had at least one unmet need) measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE). Low social support, a high body-mass-index, a lower education, functional impairment, and worse health status were associated with more unmet needs, regardless of sex. In women, higher unmet needs were associated with more depressive symptoms, a poor financial situation, living alone and not being recently treated by a general practitioner. In males, unmet needs increased with the number of medications taken.

Conclusions

PlwD had a broad array of unmet healthcare needs, indicating primary healthcare provision improvement potentials. The results underscore the significance of early assessment of patient's clinical characteristics and unmet needs as a basis for individualized gender-sensible intervention strategies.∥ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04741932, Registered on February 5, 2021.

Further development needed: models of post-diagnostic support for people with dementia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is increasing recognition of a service gap immediately after diagnosis for people with dementia and carers. This narrative review of models of post-diagnostic support focuses on recent developments and offers suggestions for future development. We present the current evidence for these models and consider the service components they provide against the recommendations of clinical guidelines and principles underpinning ideal post-diagnostic support.

RECENT FINDINGS

Models of post-diagnostic support include a short-term support worker, ongoing support worker, centre-based support, primary care management, and specialist dementia clinics. Of these, specialist dementia clinics that include ongoing support workers provide most components of an ideal and timely post-diagnostic support framework, but may be more costly to implement universally. The greatest research evidence is for the benefits of long-term support models, specifically case management, though this does not necessarily include medical care or nonpharmacological interventions. There is sparce evidence for the benefits of short-term support worker models such as dementia advisers for people with dementia and carers.

SUMMARY

Further development is needed to create whole-system models of dementia support which meet the needs of people with dementia and their carers, are timely, accessible and equitable, and can be implemented universally.

Do They Align? Congruence Between Patient Preferences of People Living with Cognitive Impairments and Physicians' Judgements for Person-Centered Care: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study

BACKGROUND

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among people living with cognitive impairments (PlwCI), evidence on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which allow to quantify, weigh, and rank care elements, is limited. Furthermore, data on the congruence of patient preferences with physicians' judgements for PCC are missing. Such information is expected to support the implementation of PCC; state-of-the-art medical care aligned with patients' preferences.

OBJECTIVE

To elicit patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC and their congruence.

METHODS

Data from the mixed-methods PreDemCare study, including a cross-sectional, paper-and-pencil, interviewer-assisted analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey conducted with n = 50 community-dwelling PlwCI and n = 25 physicians. Individual AHP weights (preferences/judgements) were calculated with the principal eigenvector method and aggregated per group by aggregation of individual priorities mode. Individual consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated and aggregated per group. Group differences in preferences/judgements were investigated descriptively by means and standard deviations (SDs) of AHP weights, resulting ranks, and boxplots. Additionally, differences between groups were investigated with independent paired t-test/Mann Whitney U-test. Sensitivity of AHP results was tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents, with an accepted threshold at CR≤0.3 for patients, and CR≤0.2 for physicians, due to better cognitive fitness of the latter group.

RESULTS

Patient preferences and physicians' judgements did not differ significantly, except for the criterion Memory Exercises (AHP weights (mean (SD)): 0.135 (0.066) versus 0.099 (0.068), p = 0.01). We did not see rank-reversals of criteria after exclusion of inconsistent participants. Mean CR for patients at the criteria level was 0.261, and 0.181 for physicians.

CONCLUSION

Physicians' judgements in our setting aligned well with patients' preferences. Our findings may be used to guide the implementation of preference-based PCC.

Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care—Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and “thinking-aloud” interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.

Elicitation of quantitative, choice-based preferences for Person-Centered Care among People living with Dementia in comparison to physicians' judgements in Germany: study protocol for the mixed-methods PreDemCare-study

Background

Person-Centered-Care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among People-living-with-Dementia (PlwD) data on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which would allow to quantify, weigh and rank patient-relevant elements of dementia-care, and identify most/least preferred choices, are limited. The Analytic-Hierarchy-Process (AHP) may be one approach to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences with PlwD, due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision-problem, e.g. health care decisions. Furthermore, data on congruence of patient preferences with physicians’ judgements for PCC are missing. If patient preferences and physicians’ judgements differ, provision of PCC becomes unlikely. An understanding of patient preferences compared to physician’s judgements will support the implementation of truly PCC, i.e. state of the art dementia-care aligned with patient preferences.

Methods

This mixed-methods-study will be based on the results from a previous systematic review and conducted in three phases: (I) literature-based key intervention-categories of PCC will be investigated during qualitative interviews with Dementia-Care-Managers (DCMs) and PlwD to identify actually patient-relevant (sub) criteria of PCC; (II) based on findings from phase I, an AHP-survey will be designed and pre-tested for face- and content-validity, and consistency during face-to-face “thinking-aloud”-interviews with PlwD and two expert panels (DCMs and physicians); (III) the developed survey will elicit patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC. To assess individual importance weights for (sub) criteria in both groups, the Principal-Eigenvector-Method will be applied. Weights will be aggregated per group by Aggregation-of-Individual-Priorities-mode. Descriptive and interferential statistical analyses will be conducted to assess congruence of importance-weights between groups. Subgroup-analyses shall investigate participant-heterogeneities, sensitivity of AHP-results shall be tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents.

Discussion

Little research is published on quantitative, choice-based preferences in dementia care. We expect that (1) PlwD have preferences and can express these, (2) that the AHP is a suitable technique to elicit quantitative, choice-based preferences among PlwD, and (3) to identify a divergence between patient preferences and physicians’ judgements for PCC. With the help of the AHP-technique, which supports systematic decision-making including multiple criteria, it may be possible to involve PlwD in future care decisions (patient participation) and ensure implementation of truly Person-Centered-Dementia-Care.

Trial registration

Approval of the study was granted by the Ethics Committee at the University Medicine Greifswald the 09Apr2021 (Reg.-Nr.: BB 018–21, BB 018-21a, BB 018-21b).