Moving forward with dementia: an explorative cross-country qualitative study into post-diagnostic experiences.

OBJECTIVES: This explorative cross-country qualitative study aims to describe experiences of receiving a dementia diagnosis and experiences of support following a diagnosis in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Poland. METHOD: Qualitative study using projective techniques during online focus groups, online and telephone interviews with people with dementia and caregivers. RESULTS: Twenty-three people with dementia and 53 caregivers participated. Qualitative content analysis revealed five themes; (1) 'Coming to terms with dementia' helped people deal with complex emotions to move forward. (3) 'The social network as a source of support' and (4) 'The challenges and realities of formal support' and impacted 'Coming to terms with dementia'. (2) 'Navigating life with dementia as a caregiver' highlights caregiver burden and was impacted by (4) 'The challenges and realities of formal support'. People were (5) 'Self-caring and preparing for tomorrow' as they focused on maintaining current health whilst planning the future. Despite differences in healthcare and post-diagnostic support systems, there were more similarities across countries than differences. CONCLUSION: Across countries, formal support and support from friends and family are crucial for people with dementia and caregivers to come to terms with dementia and maintain carer wellbeing to ultimately live well with dementia.

Why to test for dementia: perspectives of patients, significant others and general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to provide greater insight into the current decision-making process on diagnostic testing for dementia by exploring the expectations, needs and experiences of patients with memory complaints, significant others and general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with patients (>60 years) who consulted their GP on memory complaints, significant others and GPs. Participants were recruited until data saturation was reached in thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS: We performed 51 interviews (patients n = 20, significant others n = 15, GPs n = 16). Thematic analysis revealed four themes: (i) 'drivers to (not) testing', i.e. need to act on symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of diagnostic testing; (ii) 'patient preferences and context are critical in the actual decision', i.e. in the actual decision-making process interpretation of symptoms, GPs' desire to meet patient preferences, social context and healthcare system dynamics guided the decision; (iii) 'need for individualised communication in the decision-making process', i.e. for patients feeling heard was a prerequisite for decision-making and GPs tailored communication strategies to individual patients and (iv) 'GP practice and barriers to shared decision-making (SDM)', i.e. although GPs value SDM in the decision on diagnostic testing for dementia, patients express limited awareness of the decision and options at stake. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making on diagnostic testing for dementia is a multifactorial and preference-guided process for all involved stakeholders, but decisions are often not explicitly jointly made. Development of patient decision aids could facilitate better involvement and more informed choices by patients.

Exploring diagnostic strategies for memory complaints in older adults: A retrospective general practice database study.

OBJECTIVES: For older people who worry about their memory, their general practitioner (GP) is often the first healthcare professional they turn to. This study aims to increase knowledge of GPs' daily practice on diagnostic strategies for patients who present themselves with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia for the first time in general practice and to explore associations of patients' characteristics with these strategies. METHOD: Retrospective observational study using electronic patient records from patients presenting with memory complaints between 2012 and 2019. The patient records are derived from a Dutch primary care registration network. The decision on diagnostic strategy was extracted and categorized as (1) wait and see, (2) diagnostic testing in primary care, or (3) referral. Patient characteristics (gender, age, general practice, level of comorbidities, chronic polypharmacy, and the number of consultations on memory complaints), fear of developing dementia, and information on why the first consultation on memory complaints was scheduled were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were included. Most patients were cared for within primary care, either for further primary care diagnostics (56.1%) or because a wait-and-see strategy was pursued (14.9%). One-third (28.9%) of patients were referred. Differences between diagnostic strategies in patient characteristics, fear of developing dementia, or reason for first consultation between these diagnostic strategies were not found, nor were these variables predictive of referral. CONCLUSION: Most Dutch patients with memory complaints and/or worries about dementia who seek help from their GP for the first time are cared for in the primary care setting for the following 6 months. The lack of association between included patient characteristics and diagnostic strategies highlights the complexity of the decision-making process on diagnostic testing for dementia in general practice.

Understanding patients' and significant others' preferences on starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia: An integrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the preferences of people with memory complaints (PwMC) and their significant others regarding starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Embase. Selection of abstracts and papers was performed independently by two researchers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Result sections of the selected papers were thematically synthesized. RESULTS: From 2497 citations, seven qualitative studies and two mixed methods studies published between 2010 and 2020 were included. Overall quality of the studies was high to moderate. A thematic synthesis showed that preferences for starting a diagnostic trajectory arose from the feeling of needing to do something about the symptoms, beliefs on the necessity and expected outcomes of starting a diagnostic trajectory. These views were influenced by normalization or validation of symptoms, the support or wishes of the social network, interactions with health care professionals, the health status of the PwMC, and societal factors such as stigma and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: A variety of considerations with regard to decision-making on starting a diagnostic trajectory for dementia were identified. This emphasizes the need to explore individual preferences to facilitate a timely dementia diagnosis.

Implementation of a diagnostic decision aid for people with memory complaints and their general practitioners: a protocol of a before and after pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals often stress the importance of an early dementia diagnosis. Empirical evidence, however, is scarce leading to a lack of consensus on the necessity of diagnosing dementia early. We emphasise the need for a 'timely' diagnosis, that is, one that occurs at the right moment for a person with memory complaints and his/her significant other. As the optimal timing differs between individuals, the implementation of shared decision making (SDM), preferably by the general practitioner (GP), as the start of a diagnostic trajectory, could help to determine this timely moment. SDM, however, is rarely practised with respect to dementia diagnoses. Therefore, in the context of the Shared Decision-Making regarding Dementia Diagnosis project, a patient decision aid (PtDA) for 'timely' dementia diagnosis in general practice will be developed. This protocol will describe the planned before and after evaluation of its implementation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a mixed-methods pilot study, we will investigate decision-making processes and experiences regarding a diagnostic trajectory before and after the introduction of a PtDA for people with memory complaints, their significant others and their GPs. The 'before group' will receive diagnostics as usual from their GPs. The 'after group' will use the PtDA. We expect the PtDA to increase the level of SDM and to contribute to a timely and personalised diagnostic trajectory. Data will be collected using semistructured interviews, questionnaires and information retrieved from people with memory complaints' medical records. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was approved by the Medical Review Ethics Committee of the Maastricht University Medical Centre. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and presented at conferences. This study was funded by the public funded Dutch Research Institute for Care and Medical Sciences (ZonMw). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04531956.