Quality over quantity - rethinking social participation in dementia prevention: results from the AgeWell.de trial.

BACKGROUND: Social participation as a protective factor against cognitive decline was one of the targets in the AgeWell.de study, a multi-domain interventional trial in a sample of older adults at increased risk for dementia. This study aimed to examine differential effects of the intervention and other influencing factors on social participation throughout the trial. METHODS: A longitudinal analysis of study data at the primary follow-up after 24 months (n = 819) was conducted. The Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6) was used to assess quantitative aspects of social networks, and self-reported social activities were classified using a three-tiered categorical framework to capture qualitative aspects. RESULTS: A positive effect of the intervention was observed at the qualitative framework level, with an OR of 1.38 [95% CI: 1.05-1.82] for achieving or maintaining higher social participation at follow-up, while no effect could be detected on quantitative social network characteristics. Later phases of the Covid-19 pandemic showed a negative impact on the level of social participation at follow-up with an OR of 0.84 [95% CI: 0.75-0.95]. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that by focusing on qualitative aspects of social participation as a component of dementia prevention, future interventions can promote enriched social interactions within established social networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) ID DRKS00013555.

Effects of a multidomain intervention against cognitive decline on dementia risk profiles - Results from the AgeWell.de trial.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia risk scores constitute promising surrogate outcomes for lifestyle interventions targeting cognitive function. We investigated whether dementia risk, assessed using the LIfestyle for BRAin health (LIBRA) index, was reduced by the AgeWell.de intervention. METHODS: Secondary analyses of the AgeWell trial, testing a multicomponent intervention (including optimization of nutrition, medication, and physical, social, and cognitive activity) in older adults with increased dementia risk. We analyzed data from n = 461 participants with complete information on risk/protective factors comprised by LIBRA at the 24-month follow-up. Intervention effects on LIBRA and LIBRA components were assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: The intervention reduced LIBRA scores, indicating decreased dementia risk at follow-up (b = -0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.14, -0.12). Intervention effects were particularly due to improvements in diet (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.22) and hypertension (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.19, 2.18). DISCUSSION: The AgeWell.de intervention reduced dementia risk. However, several risk factors did not improve, possibly requiring more intensive interventions. HIGHLIGHTS: The AgeWell.de intervention reduced dementia risk according to LIfestyle for BRAin health (LIBRA) scores. Beneficial effects on LIBRA are mainly due to changes in diet and blood pressure. A pragmatic lifestyle intervention is apt to reduce dementia risk in an at-risk population.

A multidomain intervention against cognitive decline in an at-risk-population in Germany: Results from the cluster-randomized AgeWell.de trial.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the effectiveness of a multidomain intervention to preserve cognitive function in older adults at risk for dementia in Germany in a cluster-randomized trial. METHODS: Individuals with a Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia (CAIDE) risk score ≥ 9 aged 60 to 77 years were recruited. After randomization of their general practitioner (GP), patients received a multidomain intervention (including optimization of nutrition and medication, and physical, social, and cognitive activity) or general health advice and GP treatment as usual over 24 months. Primary outcome was global cognitive performance (composite z score, based on domain-specific neuropsychological tests). RESULTS: Of 1030 participants at baseline, n = 819 completed the 24-month follow-up assessment. No differences regarding global cognitive performance (average marginal effect = 0.010, 95% confidence interval: -0.113, 0.133) were found between groups at follow-up. Perceived restrictions in intervention conduct by the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact intervention effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. HIGHLIGHTS: Overall, no intervention effects on global cognitive performance were detected. The multidomain intervention improved health-related quality of life in the total sample. In women, the multidomain intervention reduced depressive symptoms. The intervention was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diabetes self-management education programs: Results from a nationwide population-based study on characteristics of participants, rating of programs and reasons for non-participation.

OBJECTIVE: Population-based studies of reasons for not participating in diabetes self-management education (DSME) are scarce. Therefore, we investigated what sociodemographic and disease-related factors are associated with participation in DSME, the reasons for not participating in DSME and how participants evaluate DSME. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from the nationwide survey "Disease knowledge and information needs-Diabetes mellitus 2017", which included a total of 1396 participants diagnosed with diabetes mellitus (diabetes; n = 394 DSME-participants, n = 1002 DSME-never-participants). Analyses used weighted logistic or multinominal regression analyses with bivariate and multivariable approaches. RESULTS: Participants were more likely to attend DSME if they had a medium (OR 1.82 [95%CI 1.21-2.73]),or high (OR 2.04 [95%CI 1.30-3.21]) level of education, had type 1 diabetes (OR 2.46 [1.24-4.90]) and insulin treatment (OR 1.96 [95%CI 1.33-2.90]). Participants were less likely to attend DSME if they lived in East Germany (OR 0.57 [95%CI 0.39-0.83]), had diabetes for >2 to 5 years (OR 0.52 [95%CI 0.31-0.88] compared to >5 years), did not agree that diabetes is a lifelong disease (OR 0.30 [95%CI 0.15-0.62], had never been encouraged by their physician to attend DSME (OR 0.19 [95%CI 0.13-0.27]) and were not familiar with disease management programs (OR 0.67 [95%CI 0.47-0.96]). The main reasons for non-participation were participant's personal perception that DSME was not necessary (26.6%), followed by lack of recommendation from treating physician (25.7%) and lack of information on DSME (20.7%). DSME-participants found DSME more helpful if they had a medium educational level (OR 2.06 [95%CI 1.10-3.89] ref: low level of education) and less helpful if they were never encouraged by their treatment team (OR 0.46 [95%CI 0.26-0.82]). DISCUSSION: Professionals treating persons with diabetes should encourage their patients to attend DSME and underline that diabetes is a lifelong disease. Overall, the majority of DSME participants rated DSME as helpful.

Adherence to a lifestyle intervention - just a question of self-efficacy? Analysis of the AgeWell.de-intervention against cognitive decline.

BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to detect predictors of better adherence to the AgeWell.de-intervention, a two-year randomized multi-domain lifestyle intervention against cognitive decline. METHODS: Data of 317 intervention group-participants comprising a risk group for dementia (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Ageing and Dementia (CAIDE) score of ≥ 9; mean age 68.9 years, 49.5% women) from the AgeWell.de intervention study were analysed. Regression models with four blocks of predictors (sociodemographic, cognitive and psychosocial, lifestyle factors and chronic conditions) were run on adherence to the components of nutrition, enhancement of social and physical activity and cognitive training. Adherence to each component was operationalised by assessing the degree of goal achievement per component at up to seven time points during the intervention period, measured using a 5-point Likert scale (mean score of goal achievement). RESULTS: Increasing age was negatively associated with adherence, while higher education positively predicted adherence. Participants with better mental state (Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-score > 25) at baseline and higher self-efficacy adhered better. Diabetes and cardiovascular conditions were not associated with adherence, whereas smoking negatively affected adherence. Highest education and quitting smoking in the past were the only predictors associated with all four intervention components. CONCLUSION: Results identified predictors for better and worse adherence. Particularly self-efficacy seems to be of considerable influence on adherence. This should be considered when designing future intervention trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (ref. number: DRKS00013555).

Are Nurse-Led Patient Consultations and Nurse-Led Dose Adjustments of Permanent Medication Acceptable for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension in General Practice? - Results of a Focus Group Study.

Purpose: Practice nurse (PN)-led patient consultations and PN-led dosage adjustments of permanent medication are uncommon and not well studied in general practice (GP) in Germany. We investigated the perspectives of patients with common chronic diseases in Germany, diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2 and/or arterial hypertension (AT), on PN-led patient consultations and dosage adjustments of permanent medications in GP. Patients and Methods: In this exploratory qualitative study, online focus groups were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Patients were recruited from collaborating GPs according to a predefined sampling plan. Patients were eligible for this study if they had DM or AT treated by their GP, were on at least one permanent medication and were aged 18 years or older. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic analyses. Results: Analyses of two focus groups, involving a total of 17 patients, revealed four main themes: (1) openness to the PN-led care and perceived benefits, eg because of patients' confidence in PNs' skills, or patients' impression that PN-led care would better meet their needs and increase their compliance. Some patients had (2) reservations and perceived risks, especially for PN-led medication changes eg feeling that medication adjustments were a GP's issue. Patients identified (3) reasons for encounters where they were likely to accept PN-led consultation and medication advice, eg management of DM, AT and thyroid disease. Patients also saw several important general requirements for the implementation of PN-led care in German general practice (4). Conclusion: There is a potential for openness towards PN-led consultation and PN-led medication adjustment for permanent medication in patients with DM or AT. This study is the first qualitative study to investigate PN-led consultations and medication advice in German general practice. If the implementation of PN-led care is planned, our findings add the patients' perspectives of acceptable reasons for encounter for PN-led care and their general requirements.