Dementia Ideal Care: Ecosystem Map of Best Practices and Care Pathways Enhanced by Technology and Community.

Background: Globally, much work has been done by nonprofit, private, and academic groups to develop best practices for the care of people living with dementia (PLWD), including Alzheimer's disease. However, these best practices reside in disparate repositories and tend to focus on one phase of the patient journey or one relevant group. Objective: To fill this gap, we developed a Dementia Ideal Care Map that everyone in the dementia ecosystem can use as an actionable tool for awareness, policy development, funding, research, training, service delivery, and technology design. The intended audience includes (and not limited to) policymakers, academia, industry, technology developers, health system leaders, clinicians, social service providers, patient advocates, PLWD, their families, and communities at large. Methods: A search was conducted for published dementia care best practices and quality measures, which were then summarized in a visual diagram. The draft diagram was analyzed to identify barriers to ideal care. Then, additional processes, services, technologies, and quality measures to overcome those challenges were brainstormed. Feedback was then obtained from experts. Results: The Dementia Ideal Care Map summarizes the ecosystem of over 200 best practices, nearly 100 technology enablers, other infrastructure, and enhanced care pathways in one comprehensive diagram. It includes psychosocial interventions, care partner support, community-based organizations; awareness, risk reduction; initial detection, diagnosis, ongoing medical care; governments, payers, health systems, businesses, data, research, and training. Conclusions: Dementia Ideal Care Map is a practical tool for planning and coordinating dementia care. This visualized ecosystem approach can be applied to other conditions.

Assessing What Matters to People Affected by Alzheimer's Disease: A Quantitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In this phase of the ongoing What Matters Most study series, designed to evaluate concepts that are meaningful to people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD), we quantified the importance of symptoms, impacts, and outcomes of AD to people at risk for or with AD and care partners of people with AD. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to individuals at risk for or with AD (Group 1: unimpaired cognition with evidence of AD pathology; Group 2: AD risk factors and subjective cognitive complaints/mild cognitive impairment; Group 3: mild AD) and to care partners of individuals with moderate AD (Group 4) or severe AD (Group 5). Respondents rated the importance of 42 symptoms, impacts, and outcomes on a scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("extremely important"). RESULTS: Among the 274 respondents (70.4% female; 63.1% white), over half of patient respondents rated all 42 items as "very important" or "extremely important," while care partners rated fewer items as "very important" or "extremely important." Among the three patient groups, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating for any item was 3.4 (4.6), indicating that all items were at least moderately to very important. Among care partners of people with moderate or severe AD, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating was 2.1 (4.4), indicating that most items were rated as at least moderately important. Overall, taking medications correctly, not feeling down or depressed, and staying safe had the highest importance ratings among both patients and care partners, regardless of AD phase. CONCLUSION: Concepts of importance to individuals affected by AD go beyond the common understanding of "cognition" or "function" alone, reflecting a desire to maintain independence, overall physical and mental health, emotional well-being, and safety. Preservation of these attributes may be key to understanding whether interventions deliver clinically meaningful outcomes.

Technical Review of Clinical Outcomes Assessments Across the Continuum of Alzheimer's Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Insight into the relationship between concepts that matter to the people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the clinical outcome assessments (COAs) commonly used in AD clinical studies is limited. Phases 1 and 2 of the What Matters Most (WMM) study series identified and quantitatively confirmed 42 treatment-related outcomes that are important to people affected by AD. METHODS: We compared WMM concepts rated as "very important" or higher to items included in COAs used commonly in AD studies. RESULTS: Twenty COAs designed to assess signs, symptoms, and impacts across the spectrum of AD were selected for review. Among these 20 COAs, only 5 reflected 12 or more WMM concepts [Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory-Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-ADL-MCI), Alzheimer's Disease Composite Scores (ADCOMS), and Clinical Dementia Rating; Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR/CDR-SB)]. Multiple symptoms and impacts of AD identified as important and meaningful in the WMM studies map only indirectly at best to 7 of the 20 most widely used COAs. CONCLUSION: While many frequently used COAs in AD capture some concepts identified as important to AD populations and their care partners, overlap between any single measure and the concepts that matter to people affected by AD is limited. The highest singly matched COA reflects fewer than half (45%) of WMM concepts. Use of multiple COAs expands coverage of meaningful concepts. Future research should explore the content validity of AD COAs planned for AD trials based on further confirmation of the ecological validity of the WMM items. This research should inform development and use of core outcome sets that capture WMM items and selection or development of new companion tools to fully demonstrate clinically meaningful outcomes spanning WMM.

Impact of dementia: Health disparities, population trends, care interventions, and economic costs.

INTRODUCTION: The dementia experience is not a monolithic phenomenon-and while core elements of dementia are considered universal-people living with dementia experience the disorder differently. Understanding the patterning of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) in the population with regards to incidence, risk factors, impacts on dementia care, and economic costs associated with ADRD can provide clues to target risk and protective factors for all populations as well as addressing health disparities. METHODS: We discuss information presented at the 2020 National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons with Dementia and Their Caregivers, Theme 1: Impact of Dementia. In this article, we describe select population trends, care interventions, and economic impacts, health disparities and implications for future research from the perspective of our diverse panel comprised of academic stakeholders, and persons living with dementia, and care partners. RESULTS: Dementia incidence is decreasing yet the advances in population health are uneven. Studies examining the educational, geographic and race/ethnic distribution of ADRD have identified clear disparities. Disparities in health and healthcare may be amplified by significant gaps in the evidence base for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The economic costs for persons living with dementia and the value of family care partners' time are high, and may persist into future generations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant research gaps remain. Ensuring that ADRD healthcare services and long-term care services and supports are accessible, affordable, and effective for all segments of our population is essential for health equity. Policy-level interventions are in short supply to redress broad unmet needs and systemic sources of disparities. Whole of society challenges demand research producing whole of society solutions. The urgency, complexity, and scale merit a "whole of government" approach involving collaboration across numerous federal agencies.

Assessing what matters most to patients with or at risk for Alzheimer's and care partners: a qualitative study evaluating symptoms, impacts, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The What Matters Most (WMM) study was initiated to evaluate symptoms, AD-related impacts, treatment-related needs, preferences, and priorities among individuals with or at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their care partners. The objective of this qualitative study phase was to identify a comprehensive set of concepts of interest that are meaningful to individuals across the AD continuum. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 clinically referred individuals and care partners across 5 AD stages (n = 12 each): group 1 (non-clinically impaired individuals with AD pathology), group 2 (individuals with mild cognitive impairment and AD pathology), group 3 (individuals with mild AD), group 4 (individuals with moderate AD and their care partners), and group 5 (care partners of individuals with severe AD). Interviews were conducted by experienced interviewers, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Dominant trends were identified in each interview and compared across subsequent interviews to generate themes or patterns in descriptions of AD symptoms, impacts, and desired treatment outcomes. RESULTS: All participants endorsed current issues related to memory; nearly all participants (n = 55; 92%) across the five groups endorsed symptoms related to communication and language. Groups 1-3 reported an impact on mood/emotions (n = 23; 64%) and a decrease in social activities or outgoingness (n = 17; 47%). Current and future concerns reported by the overall sample included memory (n = 48; 80%), dependence (n = 40; 67%), and "other" concerns (n = 33; 55.0%) (e.g., uncertainty about the future, burdening others). The most desired AD treatment outcomes were improvement or restoration of memory (n = 40; 67%) and stopping AD progression (n = 35; 58.3%). Group-level differences were observed in the symptoms, impacts, and desired treatment outcomes among patients and care partners across the AD continuum. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive functioning issues-particularly in memory and communication-are present even in preclinical and early-stage AD, including among those without a formal AD diagnosis. While the impacts of AD vary across the disease-severity spectrum, improved memory and disease modification were treatment outcomes considered most important to participants across all 5 AD stages. Neuropsychological assessments traditionally used in AD clinical trials may not evaluate the often-subtle concepts that are important to patients and care partners. Results from this study will inform the second phase of the WMM project-a quantitative study to elicit the relative importance of these concepts of interest to people at risk for and living with AD and their care partners.