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.

Correction: Ethical challenges of using remote monitoring technologies for clinical research: A case study of the role of local research ethics committees in the RADAR-AD study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285807.].

Ethical challenges of using remote monitoring technologies for clinical research: A case study of the role of local research ethics committees in the RADAR-AD study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical research with remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) has multiple advantages over standard paper-pencil tests, but also raises several ethical concerns. While several studies have addressed the issue of governance of big data in clinical research from the legal or ethical perspectives, the viewpoint of local research ethics committee (REC) members is underrepresented in the current literature. The aim of this study is therefore to find which specific ethical challenges are raised by RECs in the context of a large European study on remote monitoring in all syndromic stages of Alzheimer's disease, and what gaps remain. METHODS: Documents describing the REC review process at 10 sites in 9 European countries from the project Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-Alzheimer's Disease (RADAR-AD) were collected and translated. Main themes emerging in the documents were identified using a qualitative analysis approach. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged after analysis: data management, participant's wellbeing, methodological issues, and the issue of defining the regulatory category of RMTs. Review processes differed across sites: process duration varied from 71 to 423 days, some RECs did not raise any issues, whereas others raised up to 35 concerns, and the approval of a data protection officer was needed in half of the sites. DISCUSSION: The differences in the ethics review process of the same study protocol across different local settings suggest that a multi-site study would benefit from a harmonization in research ethics governance processes. More specifically, some best practices could be included in ethical reviews across institutional and national contexts, such as the opinion of an institutional data protection officer, patient advisory board reviews of the protocol and plans for how ethical reflection is embedded within the study.

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.

Digital endpoints in clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases: challenges and opportunities.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson's disease (PD) and Huntington's disease (HD) are associated with progressive cognitive, motor, affective and consequently functional decline considerably affecting Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and quality of life. Standard assessments, such as questionnaires and interviews, cognitive testing, and mobility assessments, lack sensitivity, especially in early stages of neurodegenerative diseases and in the disease progression, and have therefore a limited utility as outcome measurements in clinical trials. Major advances in the last decade in digital technologies have opened a window of opportunity to introduce digital endpoints into clinical trials that can reform the assessment and tracking of neurodegenerative symptoms. The Innovative Health Initiative (IMI)-funded projects RADAR-AD (Remote assessment of disease and relapse-Alzheimer's disease), IDEA-FAST (Identifying digital endpoints to assess fatigue, sleep and ADL in neurodegenerative disorders and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases) and Mobilise-D (Connecting digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement) aim to identify digital endpoints relevant for neurodegenerative diseases that provide reliable, objective, and sensitive evaluation of disability and health-related quality of life. In this article, we will draw from the findings and experiences of the different IMI projects in discussing (1) the value of remote technologies to assess neurodegenerative diseases; (2) feasibility, acceptability and usability of digital assessments; (3) challenges related to the use of digital tools; (4) public involvement and the implementation of patient advisory boards; (5) regulatory learnings; and (6) the significance of inter-project exchange and data- and algorithm-sharing.

Intelligent digital tools for screening of brain connectivity and dementia risk estimation in people affected by mild cognitive impairment: the AI-Mind clinical study protocol.

More than 10 million Europeans show signs of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a transitional stage between normal brain aging and dementia stage memory disorder. The path MCI takes can be divergent; while some maintain stability or even revert to cognitive norms, alarmingly, up to half of the cases progress to dementia within 5 years. Current diagnostic practice lacks the necessary screening tools to identify those at risk of progression. The European patient experience often involves a long journey from the initial signs of MCI to the eventual diagnosis of dementia. The trajectory is far from ideal. Here, we introduce the AI-Mind project, a pioneering initiative with an innovative approach to early risk assessment through the implementation of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) on multimodal data. The cutting-edge AI-based tools developed in the project aim not only to accelerate the diagnostic process but also to deliver highly accurate predictions regarding an individual's risk of developing dementia when prevention and intervention may still be possible. AI-Mind is a European Research and Innovation Action (RIA H2020-SC1-BHC-06-2020, No. 964220) financed between 2021 and 2026. First, the AI-Mind Connector identifies dysfunctional brain networks based on high-density magneto- and electroencephalography (M/EEG) recordings. Second, the AI-Mind Predictor predicts dementia risk using data from the Connector, enriched with computerized cognitive tests, genetic and protein biomarkers, as well as sociodemographic and clinical variables. AI-Mind is integrated within a network of major European initiatives, including The Virtual Brain, The Virtual Epileptic Patient, and EBRAINS AISBL service for sensitive data, HealthDataCloud, where big patient data are generated for advancing digital and virtual twin technology development. AI-Mind's innovation lies not only in its early prediction of dementia risk, but it also enables a virtual laboratory scenario for hypothesis-driven personalized intervention research. This article introduces the background of the AI-Mind project and its clinical study protocol, setting the stage for future scientific contributions.

Keeping track of and recognizing the value of Public Involvement work in dementia research.

The Public Involvement (PI) of people with dementia is slowly but progressively moving from a "nice to have" to a "must have" element of good-quality dementia research. Research funders and ethics committees increasingly ask for evidence of the planning of such involvement. The actual conduct and outcome of PI are, however, unfortunately typically under or inadequately reported. In this article, we provide an overview of what PI is and why it is important to dementia research and Alzheimer Europe's approach to PI. We draw on our recent experience of compiling a set of examples of PI in different European projects in publicly available sources. This highlighted the difficulty of finding information about PI activities and the almost total lack of details of such activities in formal reports, official records, and/or public project websites. In this article, we emphasize gaps and call for more stringent conditions for the inclusion and reporting of PI work in the context of the approval and funding of dementia research projects. We call for the establishment of obligatory reporting on the nature, specific challenges, and impact of PI in dementia research in formal reports (e.g., to funders), in public project websites, and in peer-reviewed articles. Such reporting should cover several key factors such as who was involved, how they were involved, and what impact PI had on the research process.

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.

Identifying relevant outcomes in the progression of Alzheimer's disease; what do patients and care partners want to know about prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Prognostic studies in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD) mainly predicted time to dementia. However, it is questionable whether onset of dementia is the most relevant outcome along the AD disease trajectory from the perspective of patients and their care partners. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most relevant outcomes from the viewpoint of patients and care partners. METHODS: We used a two-step, mixed-methods approach. As a first step we conducted four focus groups in the Netherlands to elicit a comprehensive list of outcomes considered important by patients (n = 12) and care partners (n = 14) in the prognosis of AD. The focus groups resulted in a list of 59 items, divided into five categories. Next, in an online European survey, we asked participants (n = 232; 99 patients, 133 care partners) to rate the importance of all 59 items (5-point Likert scale). As participants were likely to rate a large number of outcomes as "important" (4) or "very important" (5), we subsequently asked them to select the three items they considered most important. RESULTS: The top-10 lists of items most frequently mentioned as "most important" by patients and care partners were merged into one core outcome list, comprising 13 items. Both patients and care partners selected outcomes from the category "cognition" most often, followed by items in the categories "functioning and dependency" and "physical health." No items from the category "behavior and neuropsychiatry" and "social environment" ended up in our core list of relevant outcomes. CONCLUSION: We identified a core list of outcomes relevant to patients and care partner, and found that prognostic information related to cognitive decline, dependency, and physical health are considered most relevant by both patients and their care partners.

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.

Wearable Devices for Assessing Function in Alzheimer's Disease: A European Public Involvement Activity About the Features and Preferences of Patients and Caregivers.

Background: Alzheimer's Disease (AD) impairs the ability to carry out daily activities, reduces independence and quality of life and increases caregiver burden. Our understanding of functional decline has traditionally relied on reports by family and caregivers, which are subjective and vulnerable to recall bias. The Internet of Things (IoT) and wearable sensor technologies promise to provide objective, affordable, and reliable means for monitoring and understanding function. However, human factors for its acceptance are relatively unexplored. Objective: The Public Involvement (PI) activity presented in this paper aims to capture the preferences, priorities and concerns of people with AD and their caregivers for using monitoring wearables. Their feedback will drive device selection for clinical research, starting with the study of the RADAR-AD project. Method: The PI activity involved the Patient Advisory Board (PAB) of the RADAR-AD project, comprised of people with dementia across Europe and their caregivers (11 and 10, respectively). A set of four devices that optimally represent various combinations of aspects and features from the variety of currently available wearables (e.g., weight, size, comfort, battery life, screen types, water-resistance, and metrics) was presented and experienced hands-on. Afterwards, sets of cards were used to rate and rank devices and features and freely discuss preferences. Results: Overall, the PAB was willing to accept and incorporate devices into their daily lives. For the presented devices, the aspects most important to them included comfort, convenience and affordability. For devices in general, the features they prioritized were appearance/style, battery life and water resistance, followed by price, having an emergency button and a screen with metrics. The metrics valuable to them included activity levels and heart rate, followed by respiration rate, sleep quality and distance. Some concerns were the potential complexity, forgetting to charge the device, the potential stigma and data privacy. Conclusions: The PI activity explored the preferences, priorities and concerns of the PAB, a group of people with dementia and caregivers across Europe, regarding devices for monitoring function and decline, after a hands-on experience and explanation. They highlighted some expected aspects, metrics and features (e.g., comfort and convenience), but also some less expected (e.g., screen with metrics).

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.

Selecting Remote Measurement Technologies to Optimize Assessment of Function in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Case Study.

Despite the importance of function in early Alzheimer's disease (AD), current measures are outdated and insensitive. Moreover, COVID-19 has heighted the need for remote assessment in older people, who are at higher risk of being infection and are particularly advised to use social distancing measures, yet the importance of diagnosis and treatment of dementia remains unchanged. The emergence of remote measurement technologies (RMTs) allows for more precise and objective measures of function. However, RMT selection is a critical challenge. Therefore, this case study outlines the processes through which we identified relevant functional domains, engaged with stakeholder groups to understand participants' perspectives and worked with technical experts to select relevant RMTs to examine function. After an extensive literature review to select functional domains relevant to AD biomarkers, quality of life, rate of disease progression and loss of independence, functional domains were ranked and grouped by the empirical evidence for each. For all functional domains, we amalgamated feedback from a patient advisory board. The results were prioritized into: highly relevant, relevant, neutral, and less relevant. This prioritized list of functional domains was then passed onto a group of experts in the use of RMTs in clinical and epidemiological studies to complete the selection process, which consisted of: (i) identifying relevant functional domains and RMTs; (ii) synthesizing proposals into final RMT selection, and (iii) verifying the quality of these decisions. Highly relevant functional domains were, "difficulties at work," "spatial navigation and memory," and "planning skills and memory required for task completion." All functional domains were successfully allocated commercially available RMTs that make remote measurement of function feasible. This case study provides a set of prioritized functional domains sensitive to the early stages of AD and a set of RMTs capable of targeting them. RMTs have huge potential to transform the way we assess function in AD-monitoring for change and stability continuously within the home environment, rather than during infrequent clinic visits. Our decomposition of RMT and functional domain selection into identify, synthesize, and verify activities, provides a pragmatic structure with potential to be adapted for use in future RMT selection processes.

Health Outcome Prioritization in Alzheimer's Disease: Understanding the Ethical Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Dementia has been described as the greatest global health challenge in the 21st Century on account of longevity gains increasing its incidence, escalating health and social care pressures. These pressures highlight ethical, social, and political challenges about healthcare resource allocation, what health improvements matter to patients, and how they are measured. This study highlights the complexity of the ethical landscape, relating particularly to the balances that need to be struck when allocating resources; when measuring and prioritizing outcomes; and when individual preferences are sought. OBJECTIVE: Health outcome prioritization is the ranking in order of desirability or importance of a set of disease-related objectives and their associated cost or risk. We analyze the complex ethical landscape in which this takes place in the most common dementia, Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Narrative review of literature published since 2007, incorporating snowball sampling where necessary. We identified, thematized, and discussed key issues of ethical salience. RESULTS: Eight areas of ethical salience for outcome prioritization emerged: 1) Public health and distributive justice, 2) Scarcity of resources, 3) Heterogeneity and changing circumstances, 4) Knowledge of treatment, 5) Values and circumstances, 6) Conflicting priorities, 7) Communication, autonomy and caregiver issues, and 8) Disclosure of risk. CONCLUSION: These areas highlight the difficult balance to be struck when allocating resources, when measuring and prioritizing outcomes, and when individual preferences are sought. We conclude by reflecting on how tools in social sciences and ethics can help address challenges posed by resource allocation, measuring and prioritizing outcomes, and eliciting stakeholder preferences.

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.

Ethical and Social Implications of Using Predictive Modeling for Alzheimer's Disease Prevention: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic paradigm in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is shifting from symptoms management toward prevention goals. Secondary prevention requires the identification of individuals without clinical symptoms, yet "at-risk" of developing AD dementia in the future, and thus, the use of predictive modeling. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to review the ethical concerns and social implications generated by this new approach. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review in Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and Scopus, and complemented it with a gray literature search between March and July 2018. Then we analyzed data qualitatively using a thematic analysis technique. RESULTS: We identified thirty-one ethical issues and social concerns corresponding to eight ethical principles: (i) respect for autonomy, (ii) beneficence, (iii) non-maleficence, (iv) equality, justice, and diversity, (v) identity and stigma, (vi) privacy, (vii) accountability, transparency, and professionalism, and (viii) uncertainty avoidance. Much of the literature sees the discovery of disease-modifying treatment as a necessary and sufficient condition to justify AD risk assessment, overlooking future challenges in providing equitable access to it, establishing long-term treatment outcomes and social consequences of this approach, e.g., medicalization. The ethical/social issues associated specifically with predictive models, such as the adequate predictive power and reliability, infrastructural requirements, data privacy, potential for personalized medicine in AD, and limiting access to future AD treatment based on risk stratification, were covered scarcely. CONCLUSION: The ethical discussion needs to advance to reflect recent scientific developments and guide clinical practice now and in the future, so that necessary safeguards are implemented for large-scale AD secondary prevention.