Impact of Hearing Aids on Progression of Cognitive Decline, Depression, and Quality of Life Among People with Cognitive Impairment and Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is common in people with dementia (PwD) and a modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline. Recent studies revealed that hearing loss could cause social isolation and depression, which is associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, there is a lack of knowledge about the impact of the utilization of hearing aids on these outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether hearing aids use might be positively associated with the progression of cognitive function, depression, and HRQoL among PwD. METHODS: We analyzed two-year follow-up data from 258 PwD (≥70 years, living at home). Cognitive decline was measured with Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), depression using Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), and HRQoL with Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease Scale (QoL-AD). The impact of hearing aid utilization on the progression of outcomes was assessed using multivariate regression models. RESULTS: 123 patients had hearing loss (47.7%), from which n = 54 (43.9%) used hearing aids. Patients with hearing loss were older and had a lower HRQoL than those without hearing loss. Use of hearing aids in patients with hearing loss was associated with a lower increase in depressive symptoms (b = -0.74, CI95 -1.48 --0.01, p = 0.047) over time as compared to those not using hearing aids. There was no effect on PwD's cognition, and the association with higher HRQoL was significant after one, but not consistently over two years. CONCLUSION: Early detection and intervention of presbycusis using hearing aids might improve mental health and HRQoL in dementia.

Do They Align? Congruence Between Patient Preferences of People Living with Cognitive Impairments and Physicians' Judgements for Person-Centered Care: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Study.

BACKGROUND: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. Among people living with cognitive impairments (PlwCI), evidence on quantitative, choice-based preferences, which allow to quantify, weigh, and rank care elements, is limited. Furthermore, data on the congruence of patient preferences with physicians' judgements for PCC are missing. Such information is expected to support the implementation of PCC; state-of-the-art medical care aligned with patients' preferences. OBJECTIVE: To elicit patient preferences and physicians' judgements for PCC and their congruence. METHODS: Data from the mixed-methods PreDemCare study, including a cross-sectional, paper-and-pencil, interviewer-assisted analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey conducted with n = 50 community-dwelling PlwCI and n = 25 physicians. Individual AHP weights (preferences/judgements) were calculated with the principal eigenvector method and aggregated per group by aggregation of individual priorities mode. Individual consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated and aggregated per group. Group differences in preferences/judgements were investigated descriptively by means and standard deviations (SDs) of AHP weights, resulting ranks, and boxplots. Additionally, differences between groups were investigated with independent paired t-test/Mann Whitney U-test. Sensitivity of AHP results was tested by inclusion/exclusion of inconsistent respondents, with an accepted threshold at CR≤0.3 for patients, and CR≤0.2 for physicians, due to better cognitive fitness of the latter group. RESULTS: Patient preferences and physicians' judgements did not differ significantly, except for the criterion Memory Exercises (AHP weights (mean (SD)): 0.135 (0.066) versus 0.099 (0.068), p = 0.01). We did not see rank-reversals of criteria after exclusion of inconsistent participants. Mean CR for patients at the criteria level was 0.261, and 0.181 for physicians. CONCLUSION: Physicians' judgements in our setting aligned well with patients' preferences. Our findings may be used to guide the implementation of preference-based PCC.

Translation of Collaborative Dementia Care Management into Different Healthcare Settings: Study Protocol for a Multicenter Implementation Trial (DCM:IMPact).

Background: Collaborative care models for people living with dementia (PwD) have been developed and evaluated, demonstrating safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. However, these studies are based on heterogeneous study populations and primary care settings, limiting the generalizability of the results. Therefore, this study aims to implement and evaluate collaborative care across various healthcare settings and patient populations. Objective: To describe the study design of this multicenter implementation trial. Methods: This single-arm, multicenter, longitudinal implementation study will be conducted in five different healthcare settings, including 1) physicians' networks, 2) dementia networks, 3) counselling centers, 4) hospitals, and 5) ambulatory care services. Eligibility criteria are: having a formal dementia diagnosis or having been screened positive for dementia and living community-dwelling. The staff of each healthcare setting identifies patients, informs them about the study, and invites them to participate. Participants will receive a baseline assessment followed by collaborative individualized dementia care management, comprising proven safe, effective, and cost-effective modules. Over six months, specially-qualified nurses will assess patients' unmet needs, transfer them to individualized care plans, and address them, cooperating with various healthcare providers. A follow-up assessment is conducted six months after baseline. Approximately 60-100 PwD per setting per year are expected to participate. Differences across settings will be assessed regarding acceptability, demand, implementation success and barriers, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. Results: We expect that acceptability, demand, implementation success and barriers, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness will vary by patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and unmet needs in each setting. Conclusion: The results will provide evidence highlighting differences in the implementation of collaborative care in various healthcare settings and demonstrating the settings with the highest need, best conditions for a successful implementation, and highest (cost-)effectiveness, as well as the population group that benefits most from collaborative care. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00025074. Registered 16 April 2021-retrospectively registered.

Development of a Quantitative Preference Instrument for Person-Centered Dementia Care-Stage 2: Insights from a Formative Qualitative Study to Design and Pretest a Dementia-Friendly Analytic Hierarchy Process Survey.

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and "thinking-aloud" interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.

Development of a Quantitative Instrument to Elicit Patient Preferences for Person-Centered Dementia Care Stage 1: A Formative Qualitative Study to Identify Patient Relevant Criteria for Experimental Design of an Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD's conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

Tasks and Activities of an Effective Collaborative Dementia Care Management Program in German Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated the efficiency of collaborative dementia care, which aims to improve post-diagnostic support. However, tasks carried out of such models are currently unknown, hindering its implementation. OBJECTIVE: To describe tasks of a collaborative model of dementia care, analyze the association between specific task subgroups and number of tasks with patients' and caregivers' characteristics and the impact of specific tasks on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The analysis was based on 183 persons with dementia (PwD) who received dementia care management conducted by dementia-specific qualified nurses. A standardized, computer-assisted assessment was used to identify patients' and caregivers' unmet needs. Tasks carried out to address unmet needs were documented, categorized, and descriptively analyzed. We used multivariate regression models to identify socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with a specific subgroup of tasks or a higher number of tasks. RESULTS: On average, 20.5 tasks were carried out per dyad (PwD and caregiver). 41% of tasks were categorized to cooperation with other healthcare providers, 39% to nursing care, and 19% to social support. Lower HRQoL and higher age, cognitive impairment, deficits in daily living activities, and depressive symptoms were significantly associated with a higher number of tasks. A higher number of cooperation tasks were associated with a higher gain in HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Patients' characteristics and HRQoL significantly determine the intensity of collaborative care interventions. Variability of the intensity should be considered in developing future studies and in the implementation into routine care. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT01401582.

Advanced nursing practice and interprofessional dementia care (InDePendent): study protocol for a multi-center, cluster-randomized, controlled, interventional trial.

BACKGROUND: A redistribution of tasks between specialized nurses and primary care physicians, i.e., models of advanced nursing practice, has the potential to improve the treatment and care of the growing number of people with dementia (PwD). Especially in rural areas with limited access to primary care physicians and specialists, these models might improve PwD's quality of life and well-being. However, such care models are not available in Germany in regular healthcare. This study examines the acceptance, safety, efficacy, and health economic efficiency of an advanced nursing practice model for PwD in the primary care setting in Germany. METHODS: InDePendent is a two-arm, multi-center, cluster-randomized controlled intervention study. Inclusion criteria are age ≥70 years, cognitively impaired (DemTect ≤8) or formally diagnosed with dementia, and living in the own home. Patients will be recruited by general practitioners or specialists. Randomization is carried out at the physicians' level in a ratio of 1:2 (intervention vs. waiting-control group). After study inclusion, all participants will receive a baseline assessment and a follow-up assessment after 6 months. Patients of the intervention group will receive advanced dementia care management for 6 months, carried out by specialized nurses, who will conduct certain tasks, usually carried out by primary care physicians. This includes a standardized assessment of the patients' unmet needs, the generation and implementation of an individualized care plan to address the patients' needs in close coordination with the GP. PwD in the waiting-control group will receive routine care for 6 months and subsequently become part of the intervention group. The primary outcome is the number of unmet needs after 6 months measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE). The primary analysis after 6 months is carried out using multilevel models and will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, caregiver burden, acceptance, and cost-effectiveness. In total, n=465 participants are needed to assess significant differences in the number of unmet needs between the intervention and control groups. DISCUSSION: The study will provide evidence about the acceptance, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of an innovative interprofessional concept based on advanced nursing care. Results will contribute to the implementation of such models in the German healthcare system. The goal is to improve the current treatment and care situation for PwD and their caregivers and to expand nursing roles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04741932 . Registered on 2 February 2021.

Associations Between Low-Value Medication in Dementia and Healthcare Costs.

BACKGROUND: Low-value medications (Lvm) provide little or no benefit to patients, may be harmful, and waste healthcare resources and costs. Although evidence from the literature indicates that Lvm is highly prevalent in dementia, evidence about the financial consequences of Lvm in dementia is limited. This study analyzed the association between receiving Lvm and healthcare costs from a public payers' perspective. METHODS: This analysis is based on data of 516 community-dwelling people living with dementia (PwD). Fourteen Lvm were extracted from dementia-specific guidelines, the German equivalent of the Choosing Wisely campaign, and the PRISCUS list. Healthcare utilization was retrospectively assessed via face-to-face interviews with caregivers and monetarized by standardized unit costs. Associations between Lvm and healthcare costs were analyzed using multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: Every third patient (n = 159, 31%) received Lvm. Low-value antiphlogistics, analgesics, anti-dementia drugs, sedatives and hypnotics, and antidepressants alone accounted for 77% of prescribed Lvm. PwD who received Lvm were significantly less cognitively impaired than those not receiving Lvm. Receiving Lvm was associated with higher medical care costs (b = 2959 €; 95% CI 1136-4783; p = 0.001), particularly due to higher hospitalization (b = 1911 €; 95% CI 376-3443; p = 0.015) and medication costs (b = 905 €; 95% CI 454-1357; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lvm were prevalent, more likely occurring in the early stages of dementia, and cause financial harm for payers due to higher direct medical care costs. Further research is required to derive measures to prevent cost-driving Lvm in primary care, that is, implementing deprescribing interventions and moving health expenditures towards higher value resource use.

Key Intervention Categories to Provide Person-Centered Dementia Care: A Systematic Review of Person-Centered Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Person-centered care (PCC) is an important concept in many countries' national guidelines and dementia plans. Key intervention categories, i.e., a taxonomy of person-centered (PC)-interventions, to provide person-centered dementia care, are difficult to identify from literature. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to identify and categorize published PC-interventions into key intervention categories to guide the provision of person-centered dementia care. METHODS: Conduct of this systematic review followed Cochrane guidelines. A search of the dimensions 'Dementia', 'Person-Centered Care', and 'Intervention' combined was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Study selection was based on 2-stage screening against eligibility criteria, limited to controlled study designs. Information about interventions and outcomes was extracted into an "Effects Table". The identified PC-interventions were categorized in intervention categories to provide person-centered dementia care. RESULTS: Searches identified 1,806 records. 19 studies were included. These covered a range of psychosocial interventions, oftentimes multi-component interventions, which followed heterogeneous approaches. Studies were conducted in long-term care/hospital settings. Nine key intervention categories were identified: social contact, physical activities, cognitive training, sensory enhancement, daily living assistance, life history oriented emotional support, training and support for professional caregivers, environmental adjustments, and care organization. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a current overview of published PC-interventions in dementia, which followed heterogeneous approaches under the PCC-concept. The heterogeneity made it challenging to identify a well-defined concept of PCC and common key intervention categories. An effectiveness-evaluation of "PC" - including "relationship-centered"-interventions may be valuable, to assess whether an explicit focus on relationships around PCC-interventions yields an added benefit. PROSPERO-ID: CRD42021225084.

Prevalence of Low-Value Care and Its Associations with Patient-Centered Outcomes in Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Low-value care (LvC) is defined as care unlikely to provide a benefit to the patient regarding the patient's preferences, potential harms, costs, or available alternatives. Avoiding LvC and promoting recommended evidence-based treatments, referred to as high-value care (HvC), could improve patient-reported outcomes for people living with dementia (PwD). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the prevalence of LvC and HvC in dementia and the associations of LvC and HvC with patients' quality of life and hospitalization. METHODS: The analysis was based on data of the DelpHi trial and included 516 PwD. Dementia-specific guidelines, the "Choosing Wisely" campaign and the PRISCUS list were used to indicate LvC and HvC treatments, resulting in 347 LvC and HvC related recommendations. Of these, 77 recommendations (51 for LvC, 26 for HvC) were measured within the DelpHi-trial and finally used for this analysis. The association of LvC and HvC treatments with PwD health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and hospitalization was assessed using multiple regression models. RESULTS: LvC was highly prevalent in PwD (31%). PwD receiving LvC had a significantly lower quality of life (b = -0.07; 95% CI -0.14 - -0.01) and were significantly more likely to be hospitalized (OR = 2.06; 95% CI 1.26-3.39). Different HvC treatments were associated with both positive and negative changes in HRQoL. CONCLUSION: LvC could cause adverse outcomes and should be identified as early as possible and tried to be replaced. Future research should examine innovative models of care or treatment pathways supporting the identification and replacement of LvC in dementia.