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.

The perspectives of people with dementia and their supporters on advance care planning: A qualitative study with the European Working Group of People with Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning has been defined in an international consensus paper, supported by the European Association for Palliative Care. There are concerns that this definition may not apply to dementia. Moreover, it is not informed by input from people with dementia. AIM: To gather the perspective of the European Working Group of People with Dementia and their supporters on how advance care planning is defined and develop recommendations for changes to the definition. DESIGN: An in-depth qualitative study was conducted, analysing online focus groups and interviews using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We included 12 people with dementia and 9 supporters. RESULTS: Participants suggested several changes to the current advance care planning definition: mentioning people with decreasing decisional capacity; better reflecting the role of family and/or trust-based relationships; reducing focus on end-of-life/medical decisions; strengthening focus on social aspects of care. Elements of the current definition that participants suggested keeping and highlighting include the framing of advance care planning as a continuous process, that is also optional; mention of communication next to documentation of decisions; and the importance of proxy decision makers. Based on this input, we developed three overarching and 16 specific recommendations for a modified definition of advance care planning that is inclusive of people with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives of the European Working Group of People with Dementia and their supporters highlighted the need for a person-centred and dementia-inclusive advance care planning definition. We provide tangible recommendations for future adaptations of the definition that reflect these perspectives.

Empowering interventions for people living with dementia: A European survey.

AIMS: We aim to identify existing empowerment interventions for people living with dementia and to explore which used interventions and projects are considered empowering and why. DESIGN: This was an online survey. METHODS: We conducted an online survey between May 2018 and July 2018 amongst professionals interested in dementia care in Europe. Interventions were clustered within the ecological model for health promotion. Reasons from respondents as to why they considered interventions to be empowering were analysed and structured according to a recently developed conceptual framework of empowerment for people living with dementia. RESULTS: Seventy-three respondents from 23 countries together mentioned 98 interventions or projects, of which 90 were unique. Interventions focused on the (inter)personal (n = 54), organizational (n = 15), communal (n = 6) and societal (n = 15) levels. A broad range of interventions were considered empowering, but no interventions were specifically developed for, nor aimed at, empowerment. Reasons as to why respondents considered these interventions as empowering fitted the framework's domains. CONCLUSION: This European survey provides insights into interventions considered empowering for people living with dementia. An important step that needs to be taken is to develop and test interventions that specifically aim to promote empowerment for people living with dementia. IMPACT: Empowerment may encourage people with dementia to live the life they choose, and focus on what is possible, instead of what is no longer possible. Many interventions are considered as empowering for people living with dementia, however no interventions could be identified that were specifically developed for or aimed at empowerment. This study shows that for promoting empowerment, it is necessary to develop and test interventions that specifically aim for empowerment, do this in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, and in this way support people living with dementia to live according to their competencies, talents and wishes.

The challenges of achieving timely diagnosis and culturally appropriate care of people with dementia from minority ethnic groups in Europe.

In a just society, everyone should have equal access to healthcare in terms of prevention, assessment, diagnosis, treatment and care. Europe is a multicultural society made up of people who identify with a wide range of ethnic groups. Many older people from minority ethnic groups also have a direct migration background. Several studies have shown that there is a lack of equity in relation to dementia diagnoses and care because equal opportunities do not necessarily translate into equal outcomes. An expert ethics working group led by Alzheimer Europe has produced an extensive report on this issue, a policy brief and a guide for health and social care workers. In this brief summary, the authors/members of the expert working group present some of the key challenges and recommendations for healthcare clinicians striving to provide timely diagnosis and good quality care and treatment to people with dementia from all ethnic groups.

Conducting public involvement in dementia research: The contribution of the European Working Group of People with Dementia to the ROADMAP project.

BACKGROUND: Dementia outcomes include memory loss, language impairment, reduced quality of life and personality changes. Research suggests that outcomes selected for dementia clinical trials might not be the most important to people affected. OBJECTIVE: One of the goals of the 'Real world Outcomes across the Alzheimer's Disease spectrum for better care: Multi-modal data Access Platform' (ROADMAP) project was to identify important outcomes from the perspective of people with dementia and their caregivers. We review how ROADMAP's Public Involvement shaped the programme, impacted the research process and gave voice to people affected by dementia. DESIGN: The European Working Group of People with Dementia (EWGPWD) were invited to participate. In-person consultations were held with people with dementia and caregivers, with advance information provided on ROADMAP activities. Constructive criticism of survey content, layout and accessibility was sought, as were views and perspectives on terminology and key concepts around disease progression. RESULTS: The working group provided significant improvements to survey accessibility and acceptability. They promoted better understanding of concepts around disease progression and how researchers might approach measuring and interpreting findings. They effectively expressed difficult concepts through real-world examples. CONCLUSIONS: The role of the EWGPWD in ROADMAP was crucial, and its impact was highly influential. Involvement from the design stage helped shape the ethos of the programme and ultimately its meaningfulness. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with dementia and their carers were involved through structured consultations and invited to provide feedback on project materials, methods and insight into terminology and relevant concepts.

Understanding multi-stakeholder needs, preferences and expectations to define effective practices and processes of patient engagement in medicine development: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The holistic evolution of patient engagement in medicines development requires a more detailed understanding of the needs of all involved stakeholders, and one that better accounts for the specific needs of some potentially vulnerable patient populations and key stages in medicines development. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this convergent mixed-methods study was to better understand the needs of different stakeholders concerning patient engagement at three key stages in medicines development: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with Health Technology Assessment bodies and regulators. DESIGN: This study brought together findings from three sources: i) an online questionnaire, ii) face-to-face consultations with two potentially vulnerable patient populations, a workshop with Health Technology Assessment bodies, and iii) three-step modified Delphi methodology. RESULTS: Overall stakeholders still need additional varied support mechanisms to undertake, sustain or measure value of patient engagement. Health Technology Assessment bodies need better rationale for patient engagement in early dialogue and tools to support its implementation. Improved awareness and understanding of the need and value that involving patients, who are often considered as potentially vulnerable, can bring is needed, as is better accommodation of their specific needs. Similarly, weighted Delphi categories were as follows: aims and objectives, and sustainability. Several additional themes were common across the three key stages in medicines development. CONCLUSION: This broad-reaching study provides the blocks needed to build a framework for patient engagement in medicines development. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients were involved in review and interpretation of data.

The language of behaviour changes in dementia: A mixed methods survey exploring the perspectives of people with dementia.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of people with dementia, about the language used to describe changes in behaviour associated with dementia. DESIGN: This study adopted a human rights approach in a mixed methods convergent parallel synthesis design. METHODS: Online and paper-based questionnaire data were collected between November 2019 and March 2020. A combination of convenience and purposive sampling was used to invite people with dementia to participate. RESULTS: In total, 54 people completed the survey. There was no clear consensus on a preferred term, but 28.3% preferred the term 'unmet needs' for describing changes in behaviour associated with dementia. Qualitative data revealed important nuances and challenges for researchers and practitioners in relation to terminology for this paradigm. Participants felt that the language we use to talk about changes in behaviour could influence how people with dementia are viewed and treated and how people feel about themselves. CONCLUSION: The majority of participants were familiar with a range of terminology. There was no universal agreement on terminology, but there was an overall preference for terms that reflect the unmet needs likely to underlie perceived changes in behaviour. IMPACT: People with dementia raised concerns about the language used to describe changes in behaviour that can occur in dementia. There is scope for improvements in the language used for this paradigm in both research and practice. Following a diagnosis of dementia, clinicians need to take the time to explore an individual's preferences and understandings. They can then share their own understanding about the potential for changed behaviour and if relevant, how any negative impact of this may be minimized.

Measuring the well-being of people with dementia: a conceptual scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Enabling people with dementia to 'live well' is a policy and research priority in many countries. However, instruments for measuring outcomes of psychosocial interventions designed to promote well-being in dementia are often derived from a symptom-focused, loss/deficit approach, or from broad quality of life concepts. A pan-European dementia working group called for research on the development of an alternative asset/strengths-based conceptual framework of well-being in dementia. This paper takes forward this recommendation by developing such a framework and using this to map relevant self-report outcome measures. METHODS: Three scoping reviews of published studies were conducted iteratively. First, we examined the literature on lived experiences of well-being and quality of life in people with dementia and then the wider dementia literature for application of well-being constructs. The synthesised findings generated conceptual domains of well-being in people with dementia. Corresponding self-report instruments used in dementia research were scoped, categorised within the conceptual framework and their potential value in measuring outcomes for people with dementia was examined. FINDINGS: Six conceptual domains for the measurement of well-being and 35 self-report instruments that have been used with people with dementia were identified. Six instruments were developed specifically for people with dementia, five were derived from the gerontological literature and 24 from the well-being literature. Fifteen instruments and one sub-scale have been examined for psychometric properties amongst people with dementia. To date, 20 have been used as outcome measures, with seven measuring change over time. A number of identified instruments utilise traditional retrospective Likert-scaling response formats, limiting their potential for use with some groups of people with dementia. CONCLUSION: An assets/strengths-based framework is presented, outlining structural domains for selecting self-report measures of well-being in people with dementia. It provides a foundation for enhancing research into processes and outcomes of psychosocial interventions, including instrument development, more precise matching of intervention aims with outcome measurement, and newer technology-based 'in-the-moment' measurement.

Timely diagnosis of dementia? Family carers' experiences in 5 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Timely diagnosis of dementia is recommended in national strategies. To what extent is it occurring across Europe, what factors are associated with it, and what is the impact on carers emotions of quality of diagnostic disclosure? METHODS/DESIGN: Survey of family carers recruited through 5 Alzheimer's associations (Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Scotland). One thousand four hundred and nine carers participated, 84% completing online. Fifty-two percent were adult children, and 37% were spouses, with median age 57. Most (83%) were female. RESULTS: Nearly half (47%) of carers reported that an earlier diagnosis would have been preferable. Delaying factors included reluctance of the person with dementia, lack of awareness of dementia, the response of professionals, and delays within health systems. Recent diagnoses were no more likely to be considered timely, although professional responses appeared to be improving. Delayed diagnoses were more often reported by adult child carers and where the diagnosis was made in the later stages of dementia, or another condition had been previously diagnosed. In all countries except Italy, the diagnosis was shared with the person with dementia in the majority of cases. Timely diagnoses and higher quality diagnostic disclosure are associated with better adjustment and less negative emotional impact on carers in the short and medium term. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study sample were well educated and likely to be in touch with an Alzheimer organisation, many continued to experience the diagnosis of dementia as coming too late, and further work on public awareness, as well as on professional responses, is needed.

Development of quality outcome indicators to improve the quality of urinary and faecal continence care.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Despite the range of treatment options available, relatively few people with incontinence find a total cure. The importance of daily management with toileting and containment cannot be underestimated. To our knowledge, there are no outcome measures to benchmark good care. The aim of this study was to create a set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure outcomes for toileting and containment. METHODS: An expert panel (EP) defined a set of KPIs using evidence from a scoping review, stakeholder engagement, and expert consensus. Peer reviewed articles, high-quality grey literature and international and national standards were reviewed to identify existing measures for management. These findings were augmented by an exercise involving patients, caregivers, nurses, clinicians, payers, policy makers and care providers to prioritise the findings and identify additional areas of interest. RESULTS: The final set of 14 KPIs includes quality indicators of process and outcome for those managed with a toileting and containment strategy and is relevant for both care-independent and -dependent persons. Rates of assessment, days waiting for specialist assessment, rates of return to work and those rating their quality of life as good or acceptable are captured. An indicator of well-being for caregivers and the economic costs of poor care are also defined. CONCLUSIONS: The set of KPIs to measure outcomes from toileting and containment strategies describes the components of each to encourage integration into existing quality frameworks. Each KPI has been refined and detailed to encourage this. If implemented, resulting benchmarking data will facilitate care quality improvement and inform value-based care procurement and provision of toileting and containment strategies.

The MOPEAD project: Advancing patient engagement for the detection of "hidden" undiagnosed cases of Alzheimer's disease in the community.

In most, if not all health systems, dementia is underdiagnosed, and when diagnosis occurs, it is typically at a relatively late stage in the disease process despite mounting evidence showing that a timely diagnosis would result in numerous benefits for patients, families, and society. Moving toward earlier diagnoses in Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires a conscientious and collective effort to implement a global strategy addressing the multiple causes hindering patient engagement at different levels of society. This article describes the design of the Models of Patient Engagement for Alzheimer's Disease project, an ongoing EU-funded public-private multinational initiative that will compare four innovative patient engagement strategies across five European countries regarding their ability to identify individuals with prodromal AD and mild AD dementia, which are "hidden" in their communities and traditionally not found in the typical memory clinic setting. The strategies include an online AD citizen science platform, an open house initiative at the memory clinics, and patient engagement at primary care and diabetologist clinics.

Towards capturing meaningful outcomes for people with dementia in psychosocial intervention research: A pan-European consultation.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia are often marginalized and excluded from influence, also in relation to dementia research. There is, however, a growing requirement for inclusion through Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), but there is still limited knowledge on how researchers can fully benefit from the involvement of people with dementia in the development and testing of psychosocial interventions. This paper describes the results of a pan-European consultation with people with dementia, synthesizing their views on outcomes of psychosocial interventions. OBJECTIVE: To involve people with dementia in establishing what are meaningful outcomes when participating in psychosocial interventions. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Consultations took place at four divergent sites across Europe, involving twenty-five people with dementia from nine European countries. METHODS: The methods used for the consultation were developed through an iterative process involving people with dementia. Data from the consultation were analysed from a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The results suggested that people with dementia wish to participate in interventions that enhance their well-being, confidence, health, social participation and human rights. This highlights a need for improvements in psychosocial research to capture these outcomes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Involving people with dementia in discussions of psychosocial interventions has enhanced our understanding about meaningful outcome measures in research and methods of data collection. This study suggests that new outcome measures in psychosocial research are needed where concepts of positive psychology and social health can guide innovation and outcome measurement.

Alzheimer Europe's position on involving people with dementia in research through PPI (patient and public involvement).

This paper reflects Alzheimer Europe's position on PPI (patient and public involvement) in the context of dementia research and highlights some of the challenges and potential risks and benefits associated with such meaningful involvement. The paper was drafted by Alzheimer Europe in collaboration with members of INTERDEM and the European Working Group of People with Dementia. It has been formally adopted by the Board of Alzheimer Europe and endorsed by the Board of INTERDEM and by the JPND working group 'Dementia Outcome Measures - Charting New Territory'. Alzheimer Europe is keen to promote the involvement of people with dementia in research, not only as participants but also in the context of PPI, by generating ideas for research, advising researchers, being involved in consultations and being directly involved in research activities. This position paper is in keeping with this objective. Topics covered include, amongst others, planning involvement, establishing roles and responsibilities, training and support, managing information and input from PPI, recognising the contribution of people with dementia involved in research in this way, promoting and protecting the rights and well-being of people with dementia, training and support, and promoting an inclusive approach and the necessary infrastructure for PPI in dementia research.

Consent recommendations for research and international data sharing involving persons with dementia.

Consent is generally required for research and sharing rich individual-level data but presents additional ethical and legal challenges where participants have diminished decision-making capacity. We formed a multi-disciplinary team to develop best practices for consent in data-intensive dementia research. We recommend that consent processes for research and data sharing support decision-making by persons with dementia, protect them from exploitation, and promote the common good. Broad consent designed to endure beyond a loss of capacity and combined with ongoing oversight can best achieve these goals. Persons with dementia should be supported to make decisions and enabled to express their will and preferences about participation in advance of a loss of capacity. Regulatory frameworks should clarify who can act as a representative for research decisions. By promoting harmonization of consent practices across institutions, sectors, and countries, we hope to facilitate data sharing to accelerate progress in dementia research, care, and prevention.

A synthesis of the evidence on peer research with potentially vulnerable adults: how this relates to dementia.

BACKGROUND: There is limited literature around peer research in dementia. This study aims to identify the benefits, the risks and the practical challenges and to develop a model of good practice in peer research with people with dementia. METHODS: We searched on PsycInfo, PubMed and Google Scholar for empirical investigations or discussion papers on peer research. Given the limited literature in the field of dementia, we included studies with groups who share similar demographics (older people), experience of stigma (mental health service users) and exclusion from research (people with learning disabilities). We applied no restrictions on language and publication date. ANALYSIS: We identified three themes: the potential benefits, the potential risks and the practical challenges of peer research. We developed a model of good practice. The European Working Group of People with Dementia reviewed our paper and added to our findings. RESULTS: We included seven papers. Potential benefits of peer research included enriched data and empowering people with dementia. Potential risks included power differentials between researchers and issues of representativeness. The practical issues for good practice included the training of peer researchers, defining involvement and roles, working with cognitive impairment and considering resource implications. The European Working Group of People with Dementia emphasised the importance of equality issues. CONCLUSION: Involving people with dementia in peer research can generate several benefits, including empowerment and opportunities for inclusion for the peer researchers and the research participants living with dementia, challenging academics' traditional views on research processes and gathering enhanced research data. There remains a need for further research on the impact of peer research in dementia studies. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Continence care for people with dementia living at home in Europe: a review of literature with a focus on problems and challenges.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To report the findings of a review of literature relating to the continence care of community-dwelling people with dementia in Europe. BACKGROUND: More than two-thirds of people with dementia live at home, and many experience continence problems. Incontinence is a significant contributor towards institutionalisation. Care and support is often inadequate or inappropriate, and guidelines are lacking. This represents a failure to respect the human rights and dignity of this group. DESIGN: A structured review of the literature relating to the continence care of community-dwelling people with dementia in Europe with a focus on problems and challenges. METHODS: Search terms reflecting dementia, continence, care/management and guidelines for community-dwelling people with dementia were applied to four databases. Hand-searching was also carried out. A total of 208 articles were searched for content relating to problems and challenges linked to continence care for this group. RESULTS: Six relevant articles were fully reviewed. The main difficulties and challenges included the following: (1) perceptions, (2) availability/provision of support and care, (3) financial cost, (4) mobility and the environment, (5) relationships and social inclusion and (6) emotional issues. CONCLUSION: Dementia and incontinence have profound effects on quality of life. The dearth of good quality data within this area and the findings of the review confirm the need for expert, consensus-based guidelines and appropriate research to ensure that the rights and dignity of people with dementia are respected. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings of the review will hopefully raise awareness amongst healthcare professionals in community practice of unmet needs of people with dementia and continence problems, and their caregivers, especially those related to social, financial, emotional and relational issues. The review does not provide solutions or guidance but is helpful in highlighting some of the key areas where special attention is needed.

Achieving consensus and controversy around applicability of palliative care to dementia.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia may benefit from palliative care which specifically addresses the needs of patients and families affected by this life-limiting disease. On behalf of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), we recently performed a Delphi study to define domains for palliative care in dementia and to provide recommendations for optimal care. An international panel of experts in palliative care, dementia care or both, achieved consensus on almost all domains and recommendations, but the domain concerning the applicability of palliative care to dementia required revision. METHODS: To examine in detail, the opinions of the international panel of 64 experts around the applicability of palliative care, we explored feedback they provided in the Delphi process. To examine which experts found it less important or less applicable, ordinal regression analyses related characteristics of the panelists to ratings of overall importance of the applicability domain, and to agreement with the domain's four recommendations. RESULTS: Some experts expressed concerns about bringing up end-of-life issues prematurely and about relabeling dementia care as palliative care. Multivariable analyses with the two outcomes of importance and agreement with applicability indicated that younger or less experienced experts and those whose expertise was predominantly in dementia care found palliative care in dementia less important and less applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of palliative care in dementia are acknowledged by experts worldwide, but there is some controversy around its early introduction. Further studies should weigh concerns expressed around care receiving a "palliative" label versus the benefits of applying palliative care early.

An evaluation of palliative care contents in national dementia strategies in reference to the European Association for Palliative Care white paper.

BACKGROUND: Dementia involves a progressive decline in many functional areas. Policy and practice guidelines should cover the entire course of the disease from early detection to the end-of-life. The present study aimed to evaluate the contents of national dementia strategies with a focus on palliative care content. METHODS: We employed qualitative content analyses. Sixteen national dementia strategies from 14 countries were reviewed. Using open coding, the contents were compared to the domains and recommendations of the palliative care in dementia white paper of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). RESULTS: Although palliative care was not explicitly referred to in eight of the 14 countries and only to a limited extent in three countries, a number of domains from the EAPC white paper were well represented, including "person-centered care, communication, and shared decision making"; "continuity of care"; and "family care and involvement." Three countries that referred to palliative care did so explicitly, with two domains being well represented: "education of the health care team"; and "societal and ethical issues." The strategies all lacked reference to the domain of "prognostication and timely recognition of dying" and to spiritual caregiving. CONCLUSIONS: National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as "palliative care." In view of the growing numbers of people dying with dementia, preparation for the last phase of life should be added to national strategies.

White paper defining optimal palliative care in older people with dementia: a Delphi study and recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a life-limiting disease without curative treatments. Patients and families may need palliative care specific to dementia. AIM: To define optimal palliative care in dementia. METHODS: Five-round Delphi study. Based on literature, a core group of 12 experts from 6 countries drafted a set of core domains with salient recommendations for each domain. We invited 89 experts from 27 countries to evaluate these in a two-round online survey with feedback. Consensus was determined according to predefined criteria. The fourth round involved decisions by the core team, and the fifth involved input from the European Association for Palliative Care. RESULTS: A total of 64 (72%) experts from 23 countries evaluated a set of 11 domains and 57 recommendations. There was immediate and full consensus on the following eight domains, including the recommendations: person-centred care, communication and shared decision-making; optimal treatment of symptoms and providing comfort (these two identified as central to care and research); setting care goals and advance planning; continuity of care; psychosocial and spiritual support; family care and involvement; education of the health care team; and societal and ethical issues. After revision, full consensus was additionally reached for prognostication and timely recognition of dying. Recommendations on nutrition and dehydration (avoiding overly aggressive, burdensome or futile treatment) and on dementia stages in relation to care goals (applicability of palliative care) achieved moderate consensus. CONCLUSION: We have provided the first definition of palliative care in dementia based on evidence and consensus, a framework to provide guidance for clinical practice, policy and research.

Participatory development of a framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in conducting a systematic review: the DECIDE-SR protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate relevant studies to contribute to evidence-based practice. Internationally, researchers have reached a consensus that the active involvement of the public leads to better research. Despite this agreement, there are many reviews of research concerning healthcare interventions intended to promote the care of people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., close contacts, both family and non-family members) primarily involve only healthcare professionals and other experts. Due to the lack of a dementia-sensitive framework to actively involve people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals as co-researchers in systematic reviews, it is important to develop a framework to inform practice. METHODS: For this framework development process, we will recruit four people living with dementia and a total of four people from their social network, and three healthcare professionals working in acute or long-term care settings. We will conduct regular meetings with these groups of the public and healthcare professionals to include them in all stages of the systematic review. We will also identify and develop methods necessary to ensure meaningful involvement. The results will be documented and analyzed for the development of a framework. For the planning and preparation for these meetings, as well as the conduct of the meetings themselves, we will be guided by the principles of the INVOLVE approach. In addition, the ACTIVE framework will be used to guide the degree of involvement and the stage in the review process. DISCUSSION: We assume that our transparent approach to the development of a framework to support the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews will serve as an impetus for and provide guidance to other researchers with the goal of increasing researchers' focus on this topic and facilitating systematic reviews that apply participatory approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration is unnecessary as no intervention study will be conducted.

Systematic reviews summarize and evaluate studies on a particular topic. They provide information, for example, regarding whether an intervention is beneficial. This type of review is particularly important for healthcare professionals because they can use the results of the review to guide their actions. There is a growing awareness that the public, including people living with dementia and those from their social network (e.g., relatives, friends), need to be actively involved in the process of preparing these reviews when they are concerned with the topic of the reviews. Despite this consensus, it is often the case that only healthcare professionals are involved in such reviews. At present, no framework for the active involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews has been developed. Therefore, we will develop such a framework together in collaboration with a range of members of the public and healthcare professionals. For this purpose, in addition to healthcare professionals, we will involve people living with dementia and those from their social network. Over the course of several meetings, we will engage in discussion with them and identify the stages of the process of conducting a systematic review in which their involvement as members of the researcher team is meaningful. We will furthermore identify the requirements associated with such an active involvement. A written report of these discussions will be produced in collaboration with the group. This will contribute towards the development of a framework for other researchers. The framework will later be made available to the public free of charge to increase awareness of this topic and to contribute towards more frequent, well-organised and meaningful involvement of people living with dementia and those from their social network, and healthcare professionals in systematic reviews.