How might secondary dementia prevention programs work in practice: a pre-implementation study of the APPLE-Tree program.

BACKGROUND: Over 850,000 people in the UK currently have dementia, and that number is expected to grow rapidly. One approach that may help slow or prevent this growth is personalized dementia prevention. For most people, this will involve targeted lifestyle changes. These approaches have shown promise in trials, but as of yet, the evidence for how to scale them to a population level is lacking. In this pre-implementation study, we aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on developing system-readiness for dementia prevention programs. We focused on the APPLE-Tree program, one of several low-intensity, lifestyle-based dementia prevention interventions currently in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with health and social care professionals without previous experience with the APPLE-Tree program, who had direct care or managerial experience in services for older adults with memory concerns, without a dementia diagnosis. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to guide interviews and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 stakeholders: commissioners and service managers (n = 15) and frontline workers (n = 11) from eight NHS and 11 third sector organizations throughout England. We identified three main themes: (1) favorable beliefs in the effectiveness of dementia prevention programs in enhancing cognition and wellbeing and their potential to fill a service gap for people with memory concerns, (2) challenges related to funding and capacity to deliver such programs at organizations without staff capacity or higher prioritization of dementia services, and (3) modifications to delivery and guidance required for compatibility with organizations and patients. CONCLUSION: This study highlights likely challenges in scale-up if we are to make personalized dementia prevention widely available. This will only be possible with increased funding of dementia prevention activities; integrated care systems, with their focus on prevention, may enable this. Scale-up of dementia prevention programs will also require clear outlines of their core and adaptable components to fit funding, patient, and facilitator needs.

Challenges associated with follow-up care after implementation of an HPV screen-and-treat program with ablative therapy for cervical cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a preventable cancer; however, decreasing its prevalence requires early detection and treatment strategies that reduce rates of loss to follow-up. This study explores factors associated with loss to follow-up among HPV-positive women after implementation of a new HPV-based screen-and-treat approach for cervical cancer prevention in Iquitos, Peru. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with "obstetras" (i.e., midwives) (n = 15) working in cervical cancer prevention and women (n = 24) who were recorded as lost to follow-up after positive HPV results. We used the Health Care Access Barriers Model to guide analyses. We utilized manifest content analysis to describe barriers to follow-up according to the obstetras and thematic analysis to report themes from the women's perspectives. We also report the steps and time taken to contact women. RESULTS: We found an incomplete and fragmented patient monitoring system. This incomplete system, in conjunction with challenges in contacting some of the women, led to structural barriers for the obstetras when attempting to deliver positive results. Women in this study expressed a desire to receive treatment, however, faced cognitive barriers including a lack of understanding about HPV results and treatment procedures, fear or anxiety about HPV or treatment, and confusion about the follow-up process. Women also reported having important work matters as a barrier and reported frequently using natural medicine. Reported financial barriers were minimal. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the barriers to follow-up after implementation of a primary-level HPV-based screen-and-treat approach. While some barriers that have previously been associated with loss to follow-up were not as prominently observed in this study (e.g., financial), we emphasize the need for screen-and-treat programs to focus on strategies that can address incomplete registry systems, structural challenges in results delivery, cognitive barriers in understanding results and treatment, and work-related barriers.

Worry and ruminative brooding: associations with cognitive and physical health in older adults.

Introduction: Mental health conditions are associated with cognition and physical function in older adults. We examined whether worry and ruminative brooding, key symptoms of certain mental health conditions, are related to subjective and/or objective measures of cognitive and physical (cardiovascular) health. Methods: We used baseline data from 282 participants from the SCD-Well and Age-Well trials (178 female; agemean = 71.1 years). We measured worry and ruminative brooding using the Penn State Worry Questionnaire and the Ruminative Response Scale-brooding subscale. We assessed subjective physical health using the WHOQOL-Bref physical subscale, and objective physical health via blood pressure and modified versions of the Framingham Risk Score and Charlson Comorbidity Index. With subjective and objective cognition, we utilized the Cognitive Difficulties Scale and a global composite (modified Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite, PACC5, with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV, category fluency, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2, and either the California Verbal Learning Test or the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test). We conducted linear regressions, adjusted for education, age, sex and cohort. Results: Worry and ruminative brooding were negatively associated with subjective physical health (worry: ß = -0.245, 95%CI -0.357 to -0.133, p < 0.001; ruminative brooding: ß = -0.224, 95%CI -0.334 to -0.113, p < 0.001) and subjective cognitive difficulties (worry: ß = 0.196, 95%CI 0.091 to 0.302, p < 0.001; ruminative brooding: ß = 0.239, 95%CI 0.133 to 0.346, p < 0.001). We did not observe associations between worry or ruminative brooding and any measure of objective health. Discussion: Worry and ruminative brooding may be common mechanisms associated with subjective but not objective health. Alternatively, cognitively unimpaired older adults may become aware of subtle changes not captured by objective measures used in this study. Interventions reducing worry and ruminative brooding may promote subjective physical and cognitive health; however, more research is needed to determine causality of the relationships.