The landscape of inequalities in dementia across Europe: First insights from the INTERDEM taskforce.

BACKGROUND: Getting a diagnosis of dementia does not equate to equitable access to care. People with dementia and unpaid carers face many barriers to care, which can vary within, and across, different countries and cultures. With little evidence across different countries, the aim of this scoping exercise was to identify the different and similar types of inequalities in dementia across Europe, and provide recommendations for addressing these. METHODS: We conducted a brief online survey with INTERDEM and INTERDEM Academy members across Europe, and with members of Alzheimer Europe's European Working Group of People with Dementia and Carers in February and March 2023. Members were asked about whether inequalities in dementia care existed within their country; if yes, to highlight three key inequalities. Responses on barriers were coded into groups, and frequencies of inequalities were calculated. Highlighted inequalities were discussed and prioritised at face-to-face and virtual consensus meetings in England, Ireland, Italy, and Poland, involving people with dementia, unpaid carers, health and social care providers, and non-profit organisations. RESULTS: Forty-nine academics, PhD students, people with dementia and unpaid carers from 10 countries (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Malta, Netherlands, UK) completed the survey. The most frequently identified inequalities focused on unawareness and lack of information, higher level system issues (i.e. lack of communication among care professionals), lack of service suitability, and stigma. Other barriers included workforce training and knowledge, financial costs, culture and language, lack of single-point-of-contact person, age, and living location/postcode lottery. There was general consensus among people living dementia and care providers of unawareness as a key barrier in different European countries, with varied priorities in Ireland depending on geographical location. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a first insight on dementia inequalities across Europe, generate cross-country learnings on how to address these inequalities in dementia, and can underpin further solution-focused research that informs policy and key decision makers to implement changes.

Protocol for the feasibility and implementation study of a model of best practice in primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care: PriDem.

INTRODUCTION: Care is often inadequate and poorly integrated after a dementia diagnosis. Research and policy highlight the unaffordability and unsustainability of specialist-led support, and instead suggest a task-shared model, led by primary care. This study is part of the PriDem primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care research programme and will assess delivery of an evidence-informed, primary care based, person-centred intervention. The intervention involves Clinical Dementia Leads (CDLs) working in primary care to develop effective dementia care systems that build workforce capacity and support teams to deliver tailored support to people living with dementia and their carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a 15-month mixed-methods feasibility and implementation study, situated in four National Health Service (NHS) primary care networks in England. The primary outcome is adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices, assessed through a patient records audit. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention; appropriateness and acceptability of outcome measures; acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components. People living with dementia (n=80) and carers (n=66) will be recruited through participating general practices and will complete standardised measures of health and well-being. Participant service use data will be extracted from electronic medical records. A process evaluation will explore implementation barriers and facilitators through methods including semistructured interviews with people living with dementia, carers and professionals; observation of CDL engagement with practice staff; and a practice fidelity log. Process evaluation data will be analysed qualitatively using codebook thematic analysis, and quantitatively using descriptive statistics. Economic analysis will determine intervention cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received favourable ethical opinion from Wales REC4. NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group support allows researchers preconsent access to patient data. Results will inform intervention adaptations and a future large-scale evaluation. Dissemination through peer-review journals, engagement with policy-makers and conferences will inform recommendations for dementia services commissioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11677384.

Longitudinal realist evaluation of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team (D-PACT) intervention: protocol.

BACKGROUND: Different dementia support roles exist but evidence is lacking on which aspects are best, for whom, and in what circumstances, and on their associated costs and benefits. Phase 1 of the Dementia PersonAlised Care Team programme (D-PACT) developed a post-diagnostic primary care-based intervention for people with dementia and their carers and assessed the feasibility of a trial. AIM: Phase 2 of the programme aims to 1) refine the programme theory on how, when, and for whom the intervention works; and 2) evaluate its value and impact. DESIGN & SETTING: A realist longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation will be conducted in urban, rural, and coastal areas across South West and North West England where low-income or ethnic minority populations (for example, South Asian) are represented. Design was informed by patient, public, and professional stakeholder input and phase 1 findings. METHOD: High-volume qualitative and quantitative data will be collected longitudinally from people with dementia, carers, and practitioners. Analyses will comprise the following: 1) realist longitudinal case studies; 2) conversation analysis of recorded interactions; 3) statistical analyses of outcome and experience questionnaires; 4a) health economic analysis examining costs of delivery; and 4b) realist economic analysis of high-cost events and 'near misses'. All findings will be synthesised using a joint display table, evidence appraisal tool, triangulation, and stakeholder co-analysis. CONCLUSION: The realist evaluation will describe how, why, and for whom the intervention does or does not lead to change over time. It will also demonstrate how a non-randomised design can be more appropriate for complex interventions with similar questions or populations.

A cohort study of the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life of people newly diagnosed with dementia and their family carers.

Introduction: COVID-19 has impacted people with dementia and their family carers, yet little is known about effects on overall quality of life. Methods: In a UK cohort study, pre- and post-pandemic data were collected from 114 carers and 93 recently diagnosed people with dementia. Latent growth curve modeling examined change in quality of life. Results: Carers reported significant decline in quality of life, although no change was demonstrated by people with dementia. In multivariable analyses, higher levels of cognitive impairment, deprivation, study site, and lower number of memory clinic contacts were associated with greater decline in carer quality of life. Discussion: Maintaining life quality for people with dementia during the pandemic appears to have come at the expense of their family carers. This inequity has fallen hardest on those caring for people with more severe dementia, in deprived areas, and with least support from memory services. These effects may be prevented or reversed by post-diagnostic care.

The economic burden of dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: More than two-thirds of people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), resulting in a significant economic burden in these settings. In this systematic review, we consolidate the existing evidence on the cost of dementia in LMICs. METHODS: Six databases were searched for original research reporting on the costs associated with all-cause dementia or its subtypes in LMICs. The national-level dementia costs inflated to 2019 were expressed as percentages of each country's gross domestic product (GDP) and summarised as the total mean percentage of GDP. The risk of bias of studies was assessed using the Larg and Moss method. RESULTS: We identified 14 095 articles, of which 24 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most studies had a low risk of bias. Of the 138 LMICs, data were available from 122 countries. The total annual absolute per capita cost ranged from US$590.78 for mild dementia to US$25 510.66 for severe dementia. Costs increased with the severity of dementia and the number of comorbidities. The estimated annual total national costs of dementia ranged from US$1.04 million in Vanuatu to US$195 billion in China. The average total national expenditure on dementia estimated as a proportion of GDP in LMICs was 0.45%. Indirect costs, on average, accounted for 58% of the total cost of dementia, while direct costs contributed 42%. Lack of nationally representative samples, variation in cost components, and quantification of indirect cost were the major methodological challenges identified in the existing studies. CONCLUSION: The estimated costs of dementia in LMICs are lower than in high-income countries. Indirect costs contribute the most to the LMIC cost. Early detection of dementia and management of comorbidities is essential for reducing costs. The current costs are likely to be an underestimation due to limited dementia costing studies conducted in LMICs, especially in countries defined as low- income. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database with registration number CRD42020191321.

Delirium and Delirium Severity Predict the Trajectory of the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility in Hospitalized Older People: Findings From the DECIDE Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common, distressing, and associated with poor outcomes. Despite this, delirium remains poorly recognized, resulting in worse outcomes. There is an urgent need for methods to objectively assess for delirium. Physical function has been proposed as a potential surrogate marker, but few studies have monitored physical function in the context of delirium. We examined if trajectories of physical function are affected by the presence and severity of delirium in a representative sample of hospitalized participants older than 65 years. METHOD: During hospital admissions in 2016, we assessed participants from the Delirium and Cognitive Impact in Dementia study daily for delirium and physical function, using the Hierarchical Assessment of Balance and Mobility (HABAM). We used linear mixed models to assess the effect of delirium and delirium severity during admission on HABAM trajectory. RESULTS: Of 178 participants, 58 experienced delirium during admission. Median HABAM scores in those with delirium were significantly higher (indicating worse mobility) than those without delirium. Modeling HABAM trajectories, HABAM scores at first assessment were worse in those with delirium than those without, by 0.76 (95% CI: 0.49-1.04) points. Participants with severe delirium experienced a much greater perturbance in their physical function, with an even lower value at first assessment and slower subsequent improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Physical function was worse in those with delirium compared to without. This supports the assertion that motor disturbances are a core feature of delirium and monitoring physical function, using a tool such as the HABAM, may have clinical utility as a surrogate marker for delirium and its resolution.

Nutritional interventions for the prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia in developing economies in East-Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dementia represents a key impending global health challenge. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on nutritional interventions for the prevention of dementia in developing economies in East-Asia. Four comprehensive databases were searched from inception until January 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Scopus. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials [RCTs] in adult humans, assessing the effect of nutritional interventions on global and domain specific cognitive performance and dementia risk. Meta-analysis of data was conducted for each domain and sub-categorized according to the type of nutritional intervention. Twenty-four RCTs were included, of which, fifteen studies showed significant beneficial effects on cognition. Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Significant beneficial effects were found for essential fatty acids (EPA/DHA) and micronutrient supplementation on specific cognitive domains including attention and orientation, perception, verbal functions and language skills. The effect size of the interventions appeared to be greater in older subjects with cognitive impairment. Supplementation with B-vitamins and essential fatty acids may represent promising strategies to minimize age-related cognitive decline in Asian populations. Large, high-quality, long-term trials are needed to confirm these findings.

A Longitudinal Study of Functional Unmet Need Among People with Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the changes of unmet need in dementia may enable effective targeting of help and allow people to stay in their homes longer. OBJECTIVE: We investigated changes in unmet need and functioning over a 4-year period and the role of socio-demographic factors in these changes among people with dementia. METHODS: 234 community-dwelling people with dementia at baseline were studied in three consecutive waves (four years) of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Unmet needs (self/informant-reported limitations for which no help was received) and functional limitations (self/informant-reported difficulties in activities/instrumental activities of daily living and mobility) were modelled with latent growth curves. Sex, age, partnership, and socioeconomic status at baseline were used as predictors. Admission to a care home was an additional outcome. RESULTS: Unmet needs increased over time, especially among those who initially had more functional limitations. Unmet needs contributed to faster decline in functional capability, except among those with many limitations initially. The major driver of increased unmet needs was not having a partner (direct effect). Age, sex, and wealth contributed indirectly via the initial level of functional limitations and/or unmet need. Those with several functional limitations but few unmet needs were most likely to move to a care home. CONCLUSION: Unmet need increases over time in those with dementia with mitigating effects of having a partner and initial levels of functioning. Meeting needs at early stages of dementia, especially for those living alone and when functional limitations are low may help slow functional decline.

The contribution of multiple long-term conditions to widening inequalities in disability-free life expectancy over two decades: Longitudinal analysis of two cohorts using the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies.

BACKGROUND: : Disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) inequalities by socioeconomic deprivation are widening, alongside rising prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). We use longitudinal data to assess whether MLTCs contribute to the widening DFLE inequalities by socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: : The Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and II) are large population-based studies of those ≥65 years, conducted in three areas in England. Baseline occurred in 1991 (CFAS I, n=7635) and 2011 (CFAS II, n=7762) with two-year follow-up. We defined disability as difficulty in activities of daily living, MLTCs as the presence of at least two of nine health conditions, and socioeconomic deprivation by area-level deprivation tertiles. DFLE and transitions between disability states and death were estimated from multistate models. FINDINGS: : For people with MLTCs, inequalities in DFLE at age 65 between the most and least affluent widened to around 2.5 years (men:2.4 years, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.4-4.4; women:2.6 years, 95%CI 0.7-4.5) by 2011. Incident disability reduced for the most affluent women (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR):0.6, 95%CI 0.4-0.9), and mortality with disability reduced for least affluent men (RRR:0.6, 95%CI 0.5-0.8). MLTCs prevalence increased only for least affluent men (1991: 58.8%, 2011: 66.9%) and women (1991: 60.9%, 2011: 69.1%). However, DFLE inequalities were as large in people without MLTCs (men:2.4 years, 95%CI 0.3-4.5; women:3.1 years, 95% CI 0.8-5.4). INTERPRETATION: : Widening DFLE inequalities were not solely due to MLTCs. Reduced disability incidence with MLTCs is possible but was only achieved in the most affluent.

Healthy ageing for all? Comparisons of socioeconomic inequalities in health expectancies over two decades in the Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies I and II.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing life expectancy (LE), cross-sectional data show widening inequalities in disability-free LE (DFLE) by socioeconomic status (SES) in many countries. We use longitudinal data to better understand trends in DFLE and years independent (IndLE) by SES, and how underlying transitions contribute. METHODS: The Cognitive Function and Ageing Studies (CFAS I and II) are large population-based studies of those aged ≥65 years in three English centres (Newcastle, Nottingham, Cambridgeshire), with baseline around 1991 (CFAS I, n = 7635) and 2011 (CFAS II, n = 7762) and 2-year follow-up. We defined disability as difficulty in activities of daily living (ADL), dependency by combining ADLs and cognition reflecting care required, and SES by area-level deprivation. Transitions between disability or dependency states and death were estimated from multistate models. RESULTS: Between 1991 and 2011, gains in DFLE at age 65 were greatest for the most advantaged men and women [men: 4.7 years, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 3.3-6.2; women: 2.8 years, 95% CI 1.3-4.3]. Gains were due to the most advantaged women having a reduced risk of incident disability [relative risk ratio (RRR):0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.8], whereas the most advantaged men had a greater likelihood of recovery (RRR: 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.2) and reduced disability-free mortality risk (RRR: 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.6]. Risk of death from disability decreased for least advantaged men (RRR: 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.9); least advantaged women showed little improvement in transitions. IndLE patterns across time were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention should target the most disadvantaged areas, to narrow inequalities, with clear indication from the most advantaged that reduction in poor transitions is achievable.

Implementing post diagnostic dementia care in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Concentrating post-diagnostic dementia care in primary care may lead to better and more cost-effective care closer to home. We aimed to assess which intervention components and contextual factors may contribute to the successful delivery and implementation of primary care-led post-diagnostic dementia care. METHODS: Mixed-methods systematic review. We searched five databases (inception-March 2019) with reference list screening and citation tracking. We included studies evaluating post-diagnostic dementia care interventions where primary care had a significant role in dementia care, which assessed one or more implementation elements (acceptability, feasibility, adoption, sustainability, reach, costs, appropriateness or fidelity). Two authors independently critically appraised studies. RESULTS: Out of 4528 unique references, we screened 380 full texts and included 49 evaluations of services collecting implementation process data. Most services had high acceptability ratings. The most acceptable components were information provision, social and emotional support and links to community organisations. Feasibility was chiefly influenced by provider engagement and leadership, building dementia care capacity, sufficient resources/funding and collaboration. Care quality was maximised through adding capacity from a dementia-specific health professional. On the basis of limited data, costs for various primary care-led models did not substantially differ from each other. CONCLUSION: A range of primary care-led dementia care models appear feasible and acceptable. Future services should: add dementia-focussed health professionals into primary care, develop primary care leadership and provide sufficient funding and collaboration opportunities. Information, community service links and social and ongoing support should be part of services. Further exploration of service reach and formalised fidelity assessment are needed.

Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. METHOD: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. CONCLUSION: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.

Pilot cluster randomised trial of an evidence-based intervention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions in nursing home residents (Better Health in Residents of Care Homes with Nursing-BHiRCH-NH Study).

OBJECTIVES: To pilot a complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment for common health conditions experienced by nursing home (NH) residents. DESIGN: Pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 14 NHs (7 intervention, 7 control) in London and West Yorkshire. PARTICIPANTS: NH residents, their family carers and staff. INTERVENTION: Complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment of urinary tract and respiratory infections, chronic heart failure and dehydration, comprising: (1) 'Stop and Watch (S&W)' early warning tool for changes in physical health, (2) condition-specific care pathway and (3) Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation tool to enhance communication with primary care. Implementation was supported by Practice Development Champions, a Practice Development Support Group and regular telephone coaching with external facilitators. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on NH (quality ratings, size, ownership), residents, family carers and staff demographics during the month prior to intervention and subsequently, numbers of admissions, accident and emergency visits, and unscheduled general practitioner visits monthly for 6 months during intervention. We collected data on how the intervention was used, healthcare resource use and quality of life data for economic evaluation. We assessed recruitment and retention, and whether a full trial was warranted. RESULTS: We recruited 14 NHs, 148 staff, 95 family carers and 245 residents. We retained the majority of participants recruited (95%). 15% of residents had an unplanned hospital admission for one of the four study conditions. We were able to collect sufficient questionnaire data (all over 96% complete). No NH implemented intervention tools as planned. Only 16 S&W forms and 8 care pathways were completed. There was no evidence of harm. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment, retention and data collection processes were effective but the intervention not implemented. A full trial is not warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN74109734 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74109734). ORIGINAL PROTOCOL: BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026510. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510.

What works in managing complex conditions in older people in primary and community care? A state-of-the-art review.

The number of older people living with complex health conditions is increasing, with the majority of these managed in primary and community settings. Many models of care have been developed to support them, however, there is mixed evidence on their value and they include multiple overlapping components. We aimed to synthesise the evidence to learn what works for managing complex conditions in older people in primary and community care. We carried out a state-of-the-art review of systematic reviews. We searched three databases (January 2009 to July 2019) for models of primary and community care for long-term conditions, frailty, multimorbidity and complex neurological conditions common to older people such as dementia. We narratively synthesised review findings to summarise the evidence for each model type and identify components which influenced effectiveness. Out of 2,129 unique titles and abstracts, 178 full texts were reviewed and 54 systematic reviews were included. We found that the models of care were more likely to improve depressive symptoms and mental health outcomes than physical health or service use outcomes. Interventions including self-management, patient education, assessment with follow-up care procedures, and structured care processes or pathways had greater evidence of effectiveness. The level of healthcare service integration appeared to be more important than inclusion of specific professional types within a team. However, more experienced and qualified nurses were associated with better outcomes. These conclusions are limited by the overlap between reviews, reliance on vote counting within some included reviews and the quality of study reports. In conclusion, primary and community care interventions for complex conditions in older people should include: (a) clear intervention targets; (b) explicit theoretical underpinnings; and (c) elements of self-management and patient education, structured collaboration between healthcare professionals and professional support. Further work needs to determine the optimal intensity, length, team composition and role of technology in interventions.

Effectiveness of different post-diagnostic dementia care models delivered by primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Global policy recommendations suggest a task-shifted model of post-diagnostic dementia care, moving towards primary and community-based care. It is unclear how this may best be delivered. AIM: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary care-based models of post-diagnostic dementia care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of trials and economic evaluations of post-diagnostic dementia care interventions where primary care was substantially involved in care plan decision making. METHOD: Searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL (from inception to March 2019). Two authors independently critically appraised studies and inductively classified interventions into types of care models. Random effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis was conducted for each model where appropriate. RESULTS: From 4506 unique references and 357 full texts, 23 papers were included from 10 trials of nine interventions, delivered in four countries. Four types of care models were identified. Primary care provider (PCP)-led care (n = 1) led to better caregiver mental health and reduced hospital and memory clinic costs compared with memory clinics. PCP-led care with specialist consulting support (n = 2) did not have additional effects on clinical outcomes or costs over usual primary care. PCP-case management partnership models (n = 6) offered the most promise, with impact on neuropsychiatric symptoms, caregiver burden, distress and mastery, and healthcare costs. Integrated primary care memory clinics (n = 1) had limited evidence for improved quality of life and cost-effectiveness compared with memory clinics. CONCLUSION: Partnership models may impact on some clinical outcomes and healthcare costs. More rigorous evaluation of promising primary care-led care models is needed.

Neuropathological Correlates of Cumulative Benzodiazepine and Anticholinergic Drug Use.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs have been implicated in causing cognitive decline and potentially increasing dementia risk. However, evidence for an association with neuropathology is limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the correlation between neuropathology at death and prior use of benzodiazepines and anticholinergic drugs. METHODS: We categorized 298 brain donors from the population-based Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Ageing Study, according to their history of benzodiazepine (including Z-drugs) or anticholinergic medication (drugs scoring 3 on the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale) use. We used logistic regression to compare dichotomized neuropathological features for those with and without history of benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use before dementia, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Forty-nine (16%) and 51 (17%) participants reported benzodiazepine and anticholinergic drug use. Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change was similar whether or not exposed to either drug, for example 46% and 57% had intermediate/high levels among those with and without anticholinergic drug use. Although not significant after multiple testing adjustments, we estimated an odds ratio (OR) of 0.40 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.18-0.87) for anticholinergic use and cortical atrophy. For benzodiazepine use, we estimated ORs of 4.63 (1.11-19.24) and 3.30 (1.02-10.68) for neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis and substantial nigra. There was evidence of neuronal loss in the nucleus basalis with anticholinergic drug use, but the association reduced when adjusted for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that benzodiazepine or anticholinergic drug use is associated with typical pathological features of Alzheimer's disease; however, we cannot rule out effects owing to small numbers.

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors. SETTING: Stratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty care homes were randomised (intervention, n = 31; control, n = 19), with 726 residents recruited at baseline and a further 261 recruited after 16 months. Care homes were eligible if they recruited a minimum of 10 residents, were not subject to improvement notices, had not used DCM in the previous 18 months and were not participating in conflicting research. Residents were eligible if they lived there permanently, had a formal diagnosis of dementia or a score of 4+ on the Functional Assessment Staging Test of Alzheimer's Disease, were proficient in English and were not terminally ill or permanently cared for in bed. All homes were audited on the delivery of dementia and person-centred care awareness training. Those not reaching a minimum standard were provided training ahead of randomisation. Eighteen homes took part in the process evaluation. INTERVENTION: Two staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life. RESULTS: There were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, n = 388; control, n = 287). There was no evidence of a difference in agitation levels between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score was -2.11 points, being lower in the intervention group than in the control (95% confidence interval -4.66 to 0.44; p = 0.104; adjusted intracluster correlation coefficient: control = 0, intervention = 0.001). The sensitivity analyses results supported the primary analysis. No differences were detected in any of the secondary outcomes. The health economic analyses indicated that DCM was not cost-effective. Intervention adherence was problematic; only 26% of homes completed more than their first DCM cycle. Impacts, barriers to and facilitators of DCM implementation were identified. LIMITATIONS: The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: There was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. FUTURE WORK: Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Agitation is common in care home residents and may result from care that does not meet individual needs. Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) is a tool used within care homes to improve the delivery of person-centred care, which may help reduce agitation. This randomised controlled trial aimed to understand whether or not DCM is better than usual care at reducing resident agitation, behaviours that staff may find difficult to support and the use of antipsychotic medicines, as well as at improving residents' quality of life and staff communication. It also assessed its value for money. We recruited 726 residents with dementia from 50 care homes. After initial data collection, care homes were randomly assigned to DCM (31/50) or told to continue with usual care (19/50) and data were collected again after 6 and 16 months. A further 261 residents were recruited after 16 months. We also interviewed staff, relatives and residents about the use of DCM after the final data collection had taken place. Two staff members in each DCM home were trained to use DCM and were helped by an expert to use it for the first time. They were asked to use it again a further two times without support. Results showed that DCM was no better than usual care in relation to any of the outcomes. It was also not shown to be value for money. Only one-quarter of care homes used DCM more than once. The care staff who were interviewed said that the benefits of using DCM included reduced resident boredom and increased staff confidence. There were also many challenges, including the time needed to complete DCM, a lack of managerial support and problems with staffing levels. Putting DCM into practice in care homes was difficult, even with expert support, and most care homes did not complete three DCM cycles. Future research should explore models of implementing DCM that do not rely on care home staff to lead them.

The value of dementia care towards the end of life-A contingent valuation study.

OBJECTIVES: A dementia nurse specialist (DNS) is expected to improve the quality of care and support to people with dementia nearing, and at, the end of life (EoL) by facilitating some key features of care. The aim of this study was to estimate willingness-to-pay (WTP) values from the general public perspective, for the different levels of support that the DNS can provide. METHODS: Contingent valuation methods were used to elicit the maximum WTP for scenarios describing different types of support provided by the DNS for EoL care in dementia. In a general population online survey, 1002 participants aged 18 years or more sampled from the United Kingdom provided valuations. Five scenarios were valued with mean WTP value calculated for each scenario along with the relationship between mean WTP and participant characteristics. RESULTS: The mean WTP varied across scenarios with higher values for the scenarios offering more features. Participants with some experience of dementia were willing to pay more compared with those with no experience. WTP values were higher for high-income groups compared with the lowest income level (P < .05). There was no evidence to suggest that respondent characteristics such as age, gender, family size, health utility or education status influenced the WTP values. CONCLUSION: The general population values the anticipated improvement in dementia care provided by a DNS. This study will help inform judgements on interventions to improve the quality of EoL care.