A framework for addressing Alzheimer's disease: Without a frame, the work has no aim.

Confronting Alzheimer's disease (AD) involves patients, healthcare professionals, supportive services, caregivers, and government agencies interacting along a continuum from initial awareness to diagnosis, treatment, support, and care. This complex scope presents a challenge for health system transformation supporting individuals at risk for, or diagnosed with, AD. The AD systems preparedness framework was developed to help health systems identify specific opportunities to implement and evaluate focused improvement programs. The framework is purposely flexible to permit local adaptation across different health systems and countries. Health systems can develop solutions tailored to system-specific priorities considered within the context of the overall framework. Example metric concepts and initiatives are provided for each of ten areas of focus. Examples of funded projects focusing on screening and early detection are provided. It is our hope that stakeholders utilize the common framework to generate and share additional implementation evidence to benefit individuals with AD.

Implications of response shift for micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making using results of patient-reported outcome measures.

PURPOSE: Results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to inform healthcare decision-making. Research has shown that response shift can impact PROM results. As part of an international collaboration, our goal is to provide a framework regarding the implications of response shift at the level of patient care (micro), healthcare institute (meso), and healthcare policy (macro). METHODS: Empirical evidence of response shift that can influence patients' self-reported health and preferences provided the foundation for development of the framework. Measurement validity theory, hermeneutic philosophy, and micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making informed our theoretical analysis. RESULTS: At the micro-level, patients' self-reported health needs to be interpreted via dialogue with the clinician to avoid misinterpretation of PROM data due to response shift. It is also important to consider the potential impact of response shift on study results, when these are used to support decisions. At the meso-level, individual-level data should be examined for response shift before aggregating PROM data for decision-making related to quality improvement, performance monitoring, and accreditation. At the macro-level, critical reflection on the conceptualization of health is required to know whether response shift needs to be controlled for when PROM data are used to inform healthcare coverage. CONCLUSION: Given empirical evidence of response shift, there is a critical need for guidelines and knowledge translation to avoid potential misinterpretations of PROM results and consequential biases in decision-making. Our framework with guiding questions provides a structure for developing strategies to address potential impacts of response shift at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels.

Engaging Patients and Other Non-Researchers in Health Research: Defining Research Engagement.

With the increase in patient and consumer activism through the late twentieth century and into this century, patient roles in research evolved into a new model of research engagement, with patients serving as active advisors and co-leading or leading clinical research. By requiring active engagement of patients and other stakeholders, several government research funders have advanced this model, particularly in Canada, the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and Australia. A consortium of individuals from these countries formed a Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) consortium to examine critical issues in engaged research, establish consensus on definitions, and provide guidance for the field, beginning with an overview of how to involve stakeholders in health research (Concannon et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458-463) and continuing here with an examination of definitions of research engagement. The political and advocacy roots of engaged research are reflected in definitions. Engagement is conceptualized with reference to research project goals, from informing specific clinical decisions to informing health-system level decisions. Political and cultural differences across countries are evident. Some of these government funders focus on empirical rather than ethical rationales. In countries with centralized health technology assessment, the link between societal values and engaged research is explicit. Ethical rationales for engagement are explicit in most of the published literature on research engagement. Harmonization of definitions is recommended so that research engagement elements, methods, and outcomes and impacts can be clearly examined and understood, and so that the field of research engagement can proceed from a clear conceptual foundation. Specific recommendations for terminology definitions are provided. Placing engaged research on a continuum from specific clinical decisions to more global public and social justice concerns clarifies the type of engaged research, supports appropriate comparisons, and improves the rigor of engaged research methods. The results help identify knowledge gaps in this growing field.

The Experiences of Persons Living with Dementia Planning for a Dementia Research Meeting. Lessons Learned From the National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons With Dementia and Their Caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: A stakeholder group for persons living with dementia (PLWD) was convened to support the work of a major US dementia research meeting. The objectives of this examination are to present the steps used to implement the Group and guidance for both PLWD and researchers for partnering on research conference planning and participation. METHODS: PLWD met monthly to provide input into the agenda for the 2017 Research Summit on Dementia Care and some Group members also presented at the Summit. Following the Summit, the Group reviewed their contributions and completed an evaluation of the Group process, identifying best practices to support future efforts. RESULTS: Group members were initially unsure about participating due to concerns about ability to contribute and concerns about disease progression. Members reported that participation was a positive experience, however, identifying Group-led governance and attention to Group work process as important contributors. In addition to giving input to the Summit and having the opportunity to interact with researchers, sharing personal experiences with each other was part of the value of the Group to members. Careful Group selection and attention to governance were among the Best Practices members. CONCLUSION: Despite initial uncertainty among members about participating as a Stakeholder Group to inform a national research meeting, members developed a successful process for governance, convening, and providing input to a major national research meeting. Group's self-evaluation yielded specific strategies likely to be useful in formation and implementation of future partnerships between researchers and persons living with dementia.

Contributions of Persons Living With Dementia to Scientific Research Meetings. Results From the National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons With Dementia and Their Caregivers.

OBJECTIVE: Inclusion of patients in research activities has increased in the United States but no guidelines for inclusion of individuals with cognitive impairment exist. The experiences from the Persons Living with Dementia (PLWD) Stakeholder Group that formed to support the first National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons with Dementia and Their Caregivers provided a test of feasibility of this type of participation for a major research meeting and an opportunity to understand specific contributions of the Group. METHODS: The PLWD Stakeholder Group was formed by Summit co-chairs as one of six stakeholder groups charged with providing input into the Summit agenda and meeting recommendations. Members were recruited through clinician/researchers with personal knowledge of potential members. Following the Summit, Group members convened to review Group contributions to the Summit agenda, list of speakers, and Summit research recommendations. RESULTS: The PLWD Group influenced the content of the Summit agenda and some Group members were invited to contribute through Summit presentations. The Group influenced Summit outcomes: of the 58 research recommendations that emerged, 30 express ideas contributed by the PLWD. CONCLUSIONS: The Stakeholder Group for PLWD proved feasible to implement and impacted the agenda and output of a major national research meeting on dementia.

Paradoxical lucidity: A potential paradigm shift for the neurobiology and treatment of severe dementias.

Unexpected cognitive lucidity and communication in patients with severe dementias, especially around the time of death, have been observed and reported anecdotally. Here, we review what is known about this phenomenon, related phenomena that provide insight into potential mechanisms, ethical implications, and methodologic considerations for systematic investigation. We conclude that paradoxical lucidity, if systematically confirmed, challenges current assumptions and highlights the possibility of network-level return of cognitive function in cases of severe dementias, which can provide insight into both underlying neurobiology and future therapeutic possibilities.

Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.

OBJECTIVE: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) uses a unique approach to Merit Review that includes patients and stakeholders as reviewers with scientists, and includes unique review criteria (patient-centeredness and active engagement of end users in the research). This study assessed the extent to which different reviewer types influence review scores and funding outcomes, the emphasis placed on technical merit compared to other criteria by a multistakeholder panel, and the impact of the in-person discussion on agreement among different reviewer types. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from PCORI online and in-person Merit Review (N = 1312 applications from the five funding cycles from November 2013 to August 2015). Linear and logistic regression models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: For all reviewer types, final review scores were associated with at least one review criterion score from each of the three reviewer types. The strongest predictor of final overall scores for all reviewer types was scientists' prediscussion ratings of technical merit. All reviewers' prediscussion ratings of the potential to improve health care and outcomes, and scientists' ratings of technical merit and patient-centeredness, were associated with funding success. For each reviewer type, overall impact scores from the online scoring were changed on at least half of the applications at the in-person panel discussion. Score agreement across reviewer types was greater after panel discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Scientist, patient, and stakeholder views all contribute to PCORI Merit Review of applications for research funding. Technical merit is critical to funding success but patient and stakeholder ratings of other criteria also influence application disposition.

Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) includes patients and stakeholders alongside scientists in reviewing research applications using unique review criteria including patient-centeredness and patient and/or stakeholder engagement. To support extension of this unique collaborative model to other funders, information from the reviewers on the review process is needed to understand how scientists and nonscientists evaluate research proposals together. Thus, this study aimed to describe reviewers' perspectives of the interactions during the in-person review panel; to examine the value and challenges of including scientists, patients, and stakeholders together; and to understand the perceived importance of PCORI's review criteria. METHODS: This study utilized anonymous, cross-sectional surveys (N = 925 respondents from 5 funding cycles: 470 scientists, 217 patients, 238 stakeholders; survey completion rates by cycle: 70-89%) and group interviews (N = 18). RESULTS: Reviewers of all types describe PCORI Merit Review as respectful, balanced, and one of reciprocal influence among different reviewer types. Reviewers indicate strong support and value of input from all reviewer types, receptivity to input from others, and the panel chair's incorporation of all views. Patients and stakeholders provide real-world perspectives on importance to patients, research partnership plans, and study feasibility. Challenges included concerns about a lack of technical expertise of patient/stakeholder reviewers and about scientists dominating conversations. The most important criterion for assigning final review scores was technical merit-either alone or in conjunction with patient-centeredness or patient/ stakeholder engagement. CONCLUSIONS: PCORI Merit Reviewers' self-reports indicate that the perspectives of different reviewer types are influential in panel discussions and Merit Review outcomes.

Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

PURPOSE: Since 2012, PCORI has been funding patient-centered comparative effectiveness research with a requirement for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the research, a requirement that is unique among the US funders of clinical research. This paper presents PCORI's evaluation framework for assessing the short- and long-term impacts of engagement; describes engagement in PCORI projects (types of stakeholders engaged, when in the research process they are engaged and how they are engaged, contributions of their engagement); and identifies the effects of engagement on study design, processes, and outcomes selection, as reported by both PCORI-funded investigators and patient and other stakeholder research partners. METHODS: Detailed quantitative and qualitative information collected annually from investigators and their partners was analyzed via descriptive statistics and cross-sectional qualitative content and thematic analysis, and compared against the outcomes expected from the evaluation framework and its underlying conceptual model. RESULTS: The data support the role of engaged research partners in refinements to the research questions, selection of interventions to compare, choice of study outcomes and how they are measured, contributions to strategies for recruitment, and ensuring studies are patient-centered. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation framework and the underlying conceptual model are supported by results to date. PCORI will continue to assess the effects of engagement as the funded projects progress toward completion, dissemination, and uptake into clinical decision making.

Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension). Design, Setting, and Participants: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols. Results: The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care. Conclusions and Relevance: The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.

Emerging Guidelines for Patient Engagement in Research.

There is growing recognition that involving patients in the development of new patient-reported outcome measures helps ensure that the outcomes that matter most to people living with health conditions are captured. Here, we describe and discuss different experiences of integrating patients as full patient research partners (PRPs) in outcomes research from multiple perspectives (e.g., researcher, patient, and funder), drawing from three real-world examples. These diverse experiences highlight the strengths, challenges, and impact of partnering with patients to conceptualize, design, and conduct research and disseminate findings. On the basis of our experiences, we suggest basic guidelines for outcomes researchers on establishing research partnerships with patients, including: 1) establishing supportive organizational/institutional policies; 2) cultivating supportive attitudes of researchers and PRPs with recognition that partnerships evolve over time, are grounded in strong communication, and have shared goals; 3) adhering to principles of respect, trust, reciprocity, and co-learning; 4) addressing training needs of all team members to ensure communications and that PRPs are conversant in and familiar with the language and process of research; 5) identifying the resources and advanced planning required for successful patient engagement; and 6) recognizing the value of partnerships across all stages of research. The three experiences presented explore different approaches to partnering; demonstrate how this can fundamentally change the way research work is conceptualized, conducted, and disseminated; and can serve as exemplars for other forms of patient-centered outcomes research. Further work is needed to identify the skills, qualities, and approaches that best support effective patient-researcher partnerships.

Patient and Stakeholder Engagement in the PCORI Pilot Projects: Description and Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Patients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned. DESIGN: A self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured. KEY RESULTS: Most (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs. CONCLUSIONS: PCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

Development of a patient-reported outcome instrument to assess complex activities of daily living and interpersonal functioning in persons with mild cognitive impairment: The qualitative research phase.

INTRODUCTION: As drug development research efforts move toward studying patients earlier in the course of Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to incorporate the patient's perspective into measurement of outcomes. METHODS: This article summarizes the qualitative work of the Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium's Cognition Working Group in the development of a new self-reported outcome measure in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to suspected AD, herein referred to as MCI. RESULTS: The draft measure captures the patient's voice for two functional domains, complex activities of daily living and interpersonal functioning. DISCUSSION: This work represents a series of initial steps in the development of this rating scale. The next steps are to conduct psychometric analysis and evaluate the role of insight.

Conceptual and practical foundations of patient engagement in research at the patient-centered outcomes research institute.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of PCORI's approach to engagement in research. METHODS: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established in 2010 to fund patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Requirements for research funding from PCORI include meaningful engagement of patients and other stakeholders in the research. PCORI's approach to engagement in research is guided by a conceptual model of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), that provides a structure for understanding engagement in research. RESULTS: To understand and improve engagement in research PCORI is learning from awardees and other stakeholders. Those efforts are described along with PCORI's capacity building and guidance to awardees via the Engagement Rubric. PCORI's unique model of engaging patients and other stakeholders in merit review of funding applications is also described. Additional support for learning about engagement in research is provided through specific research funding and through PCORI's major infrastructure initiative, PCORnet. CONCLUSION: PCORI requires engagement of stakeholders in the research it funds. In addition PCORI engages stakeholders in activities including review of funding applications and establishment of CER research infrastructure through PCORnet. The comprehensive approach to engagement is being evaluated to help guide the field toward promising practices in research engagement.

Engaging patients and stakeholders in research proposal review: the patient-centered outcomes research institute.

The inaugural round of merit review for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) in November 2012 included patients and other stakeholders, as well as scientists. This article examines relationships among scores of the 3 reviewer types, changes in scoring after in-person discussion, and the effect of inclusion of patient and stakeholder reviewers on the review process. In the first phase, 363 scientists scored 480 applications. In the second phase, 59 scientists, 21 patients, and 31 stakeholders provided a "prediscussion" score and a final "postdiscussion" score after an in-person meeting for applications. Bland-Altman plots were used to characterize levels of agreement among and within reviewer types before and after discussion. Before discussion, there was little agreement among average scores given by the 4 lead scientific reviewers and patient and stakeholder reviewers. After discussion, the 4 primary reviewers showed mild convergence in their scores, and the 21-member panel came to a much stronger agreement. Of the 25 awards with the best (and lowest) scores after phase 2, only 13 had ranked in the top 25 after the phase 1 review by scientists. Five percent of the 480 proposals submitted were funded. The authors conclude that patient and stakeholder reviewers brought different perspectives to the review process but that in-person discussion led to closer agreement among reviewer types. It is not yet known whether these conclusions are generalizable to future rounds of peer review. Future work would benefit from additional data collection for evaluation purposes and from long-term evaluation of the effect on the funded research.

Improving dementia care: the role of screening and detection of cognitive impairment.

The value of screening for cognitive impairment, including dementia and Alzheimer's disease, has been debated for decades. Recent research on causes of and treatments for cognitive impairment has converged to challenge previous thinking about screening for cognitive impairment. Consequently, changes have occurred in health care policies and priorities, including the establishment of the annual wellness visit, which requires detection of any cognitive impairment for Medicare enrollees. In response to these changes, the Alzheimer's Foundation of America and the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation convened a workgroup to review evidence for screening implementation and to evaluate the implications of routine dementia detection for health care redesign. The primary domains reviewed were consideration of the benefits, harms, and impact of cognitive screening on health care quality. In conference, the workgroup developed 10 recommendations for realizing the national policy goals of early detection as the first step in improving clinical care and ensuring proactive, patient-centered management of dementia.

Policy Decisionmaking in Long-Term Care: Lessons from Infection Control During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on long-term care facilities' need for infection-control policies that balanced community safety and individual well-being. Infection-control policies were often developed, implemented, and mandated without the input or involvement of those who are most affected: residents and their family members, administrators, and staff. This failure led to declines in residents' physical and mental health. The pandemic exposed an opportunity-and an imperative-to reimagine long-term care in a way that is centered on the needs and preferences of those who receive care, their family members, and those who provide care. This study lays the groundwork for cultural change and a move toward inclusive policy decisionmaking in long-term care through a review of infection-control policy decisions and action items proposed in guided discussions with a diversity of stakeholders-long-term care residents, direct care staff, and consumer advocates to facility administrators, clinicians, researchers, and industry organizations. Transforming the culture of long-term care to elevate the needs of residents will require attention to facility leadership, along with steps to increase inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability in decisionmaking.

Treatment goals for rheumatoid arthritis: patient engagement and goal collection.

Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proof-of-concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach's feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease.

A New Framework for Dementia Nomenclature.

Importance: Nomenclature in the field of neurodegenerative diseases presents a challenging problem. Inconsistent use of terms such as Alzheimer disease and dementia has compromised progress in clinical care, research, and development of therapeutics. Dementia-associated stigma further contributes to inconsistent and imprecise language. The result is a lack of clarity that produces confusion with patients and the general public and presents communication challenges among researchers. Therefore, the Advisory Council on Research, Care, and Services of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease authorized a committee to make recommendations for improvement. Objective: To establish a systematic neurodegenerative disease framework for information collection and communication to standardize language usage for research, clinical, and public health purposes. Evidence Review: The Dementia Nomenclature Initiative organized into 3 major stakeholder working groups: clinicians, researchers, and the public (including individuals living with dementia and family caregivers). To inform the work, the initiative completed a narrative literature review of dementia nomenclature evolution over the last century across the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020). Initiative working groups used the results as a foundation for understanding current challenges with dementia nomenclature and implications for research, clinical practice, and public understanding. The initiative obtained additional input via focus groups with individuals living with dementia and caregivers, with separate groups for race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) as an initial assessment of the meaning of dementia-related terms to these groups. Findings: From working group deliberations, the literature review, and focus group input, the initiative developed a framework clearly separating the clinical syndromic presentation experienced by affected individuals from possible underlying pathophysiologies. In the framework, domains of clinical impairment, such as cognitive, behavioral, motor, and other neurologic features, are graded by level of impairment between none and severe. Next, biomarker information describes underlying disease processes, explains the syndrome, and identifies possible disease labels: Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, or vascular cognitive impairment dementia. Conclusions and Relevance: The Dementia Nomenclature Initiative established a framework to guide communication about cognitive impairment among older adults. Wider testing and refinement of the framework will subsequently improve the information used in communicating about cognitive impairment and the way in which the information is used in clinical, research, and public settings.