A psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family) versus goal setting and routine care: a single-masked, phase 3, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although national guidelines recommend that everyone with dementia receives personalised post-diagnostic support, few do. Unlike previous interventions that improved personalised outcomes in people with dementia, the NIDUS-Family intervention is fully manualised and deliverable by trained and supervised, non-clinical facilitators. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family in supporting the attainment of personalised goals set by people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: We did a two-arm, single-masked, multi-site, randomised, clinical trial recruiting patient-carer dyads from community settings. We randomly assigned dyads to either home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family or goal setting and routine care (control). Randomisation was blocked and stratified by site (2:1; intervention to control), with allocations assigned via a remote web-based system. NIDUS-Family is tailored to goals set by dyads by selecting modules involving behavioural interventions, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills, enablement, and environmental adaptations. The intervention involved six to eight video-call or telephone sessions (or in person when COVID-19-related restrictions allowed) over 6 months, then telephone follow-ups every 2-3 months for 6 months. The primary outcome was carer-rated goal attainment scaling (GAS) score at 12 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11425138. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2021, we assessed 1083 potential dyads for eligibility, 781 (72·1%) of whom were excluded. Of 302 eligible dyads, we randomly assigned 98 (32·4%) to the control group and 204 (67·5%) to the intervention group. The mean age of participants with dementia was 79·9 years (SD 8·2), 169 (56%) were women, and 133 (44%) were men. 247 (82%) dyads completed the primary outcome, which favoured the intervention (mean GAS score at 12 months 58·7 [SD 13·0; n=163] vs 49·0 [14·1; n=84]; adjusted difference in means 10·23 [95% CI 5·75-14·71]; p<0·001). 31 (15·2%) participants in the intervention group and 14 (14·3%) in the control group experienced serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, NIDUS-Family is the first readily scalable intervention for people with dementia and their family carers that improves attainment of personalised goals. We therefore recommend that it be implemented in health and care services. FUNDING: UK Alzheimer's Society.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a New psychosocial intervention to support Independence in Dementia (NIDUS-family) for family carers and people living with dementia in their own homes: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months. METHODS: A randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator. DISCUSSION: Increasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

Social connectedness and dementia prevention: Pilot of the APPLE-Tree video-call intervention during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Covid-19 pandemic reduced access to social activities and routine health care that are central to dementia prevention. We developed a group-based, video-call, cognitive well-being intervention; and investigated its acceptability and feasibility; exploring through participants' accounts how the intervention was experienced and used in the pandemic context. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD: We recruited adults aged 60+ years with memory concerns (without dementia). Participants completed baseline assessments and qualitative interviews/focus groups before and after the 10-week intervention. Qualitative interview data and facilitator notes were integrated in a thematic analysis. RESULTS: 12/17 participants approached completed baseline assessments, attended 100/120 (83.3%) intervention sessions and met 140/170 (82.4%) of goals set. Most had not used video calling before. In the thematic analysis, our overarching theme was social connectedness. Three sub-themes were as follows: Retaining independence and social connectedness: social connectedness could not be at the expense of independence; Adapting social connectedness in the pandemic: participants strived to compensate for previous social connectedness as the pandemic reduced support networks; Managing social connections within and through the intervention: although there were tensions, for example, between sharing of achievements feeling supportive and competitive, participants engaged with various lifestyle changes; social connections supported group attendance and implementation of lifestyle changes. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Our intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver by group video-call. We argue that dementia prevention is both an individual and societal concern. For more vulnerable populations, messages that lifestyle change can help memory should be communicated alongside supportive, relational approaches to enabling lifestyle changes.

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a goal-focused manualised intervention to support people with dementia to stay living independently at home with support from family carers: NIDUS (New Interventions for Independence in Dementia Study) Family.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of NIDUS-Family, a 6-8 session manualised, individually tailored, modular intervention supporting independence at home for people with dementia; and explore participants' and facilitators' experiences of the intervention. METHOD: In this single group multi-site feasibility study, trained, supervised non-clinically qualified graduates (facilitators) delivered NIDUS-Family to family carer and people living with dementia dyads. We recruited participants from GP practices and memory services in London and Bradford. We completed quantitative outcomes pre- and post-intervention; and conducted qualitative interviews with participants and facilitators. Our pre-specified main outcomes were proportion of potential participants approached who agreed to participate, intervention adherence and acceptability to family carers, and facilitator fidelity to the manual. RESULTS: We recruited 16 dyads (57% of those approached); 12 (75%) completed the intervention. Of 12 participants rating intervention acceptability, 9 (75%) agreed or strongly agreed that it had helped; 2 (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed and 1 (8%) disagreed. Mean facilitator fidelity was high (81.5%). Dyads set on average 3.9 goals; these most commonly related to getting out and about and increasing activity/hobby participation (n = 10); carer wellbeing (n = 6), managing physical complaints (n = 6); meal preparation/cooking (n = 5); and reducing irritability, frustration or aggression (n = 5). Almost all secondary outcomes changed in a direction indicating improvement. In our qualitative analysis we identified three overarching themes; relationships facilitate change, goal-focused versus manualised approach and balancing the needs of carers and people with dementia. CONCLUSION: NIDUS-Family was feasible and acceptable to participants. Following refinements, testing in a pragmatic trial is underway.

"Falling through the cracks"; Stakeholders' views around the concept and diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and their understanding of dementia prevention.

OBJECTIVES: Many people live with an awareness of mild cognitive changes that increase their dementia risk. Previous authors describe the uncertainties of this liminal state, between cognitive health and dementia, where being "at risk" can itself be an illness. We ask how services respond to people with memory concerns currently, and how a future, effective and inclusive dementia prevention intervention might be structured for people with memory concerns. METHODS/DESIGN: We conducted qualitative interviews with 18 people aged 60+ years with subjective or objective memory problems, six family members, 10 health and social care professionals and 11 third sector workers. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) acknowledging the liminal state, compounded by current, discordant health service responses: medicalising memory concerns yet situating responsibilities for their management with patients and families; (2) enabling change in challenging contexts of physical and cognitive frailty and social disengagement and (3) building on existing values, cultures and routines. CONCLUSIONS: Effective dementia prevention must empower individuals to make lifestyle changes within challenging contexts. Programmes must be evidence based yet sufficiently flexible to allow new activities to be fitted into people's current lives; and mindful of the risks of pathologising memory concerns. Most current memory services are neither commissioned, financially or clinically resourced to support people with memory concerns without dementia. Effective, large scale dementia prevention will require a broad societal response.

Efficacy of lifestyle and psychosocial interventions in reducing cognitive decline in older people: Systematic review.

It is unclear what non-pharmacological interventions to prevent cognitive decline should comprise. We systematically reviewed lifestyle and psychosocial interventions that aimed to reduce cognitive decline in healthy people aged 50+, and people of any age with Subjective Cognitive Decline or Mild Cognitive Impairment. We narratively synthesised evidence, prioritising results from studies rated as at lower Risk of Bias (ROB) and assigning Centre for Evidence Based Medicine grades. We included 64 papers, describing: psychosocial (n = 12), multi-domain (n = 10), exercise (n = 36), and dietary (n = 6) interventions. We found Grade A evidence that over 4+ months: aerobic exercise twice weekly had a moderate effect on global cognition in people with/ without MCI; and interventions that integrate cognitive and motor challenges (e.g. dance, dumb bell training) had small to moderate effects on memory or global cognition in people with MCI. We found Grade B evidence that 4+ months of creative art or story-telling groups in people with MCI; 6 months of resistance training in people with MCI and a two-year, dietary, exercise, cognitive training and social intervention in people with or without MCI had small, positive effects on global cognition. Effects for some intervention remained up to a year beyond facilitated sessions.

Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a valid and reliable measure of the supervisory relationship (SR) from the supervisee perspective. DESIGN: A cross-sectional questionnaire design was used with a repeated measures component for a sub-sample. METHOD: Qualitative data obtained from a previous study and from review of the literature were used to construct a 111 item self-report questionnaire measure [Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ)]. This was administered to 284 British trainee clinical psychologists. Eighty-five participants completed the SRQ a second time to establish its test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Principal components analysis (PCA) identified six components of the SRQ. Three of these reflected the 'facilitative' relationship characteristics of the SR and were labelled 'safe base', 'commitment' and 'structure'. The second set of components reflected the educative and evaluative functions of supervision. These were labelled 'reflective education', 'role model' and 'formative feedback'. Safe base accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in SRQ scores (52 per cent). Analyses using the six subscales subsequently derived from the PCA, revealed the SRQ to have high internal reliability, good test-retest reliability and good construct (convergent and divergent) validity. A preliminary test of predictive validity was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: The SRQ (six subscales, total of 67 items) is a valid and reliable measure of the SR from the supervisee perspective. The present findings support existing models of the SR, and its distinct nature during training as an educative and evaluative process. The SRQ is a promising tool for further research, and is likely to be useful in supervisor training and clinical settings.