Understanding the psychological therapy treatment outcomes for young adults who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET), moderators of outcomes, and what might be done to improve them.

BACKGROUND: To determine: whether young adults (aged 18-24) not in education, employment or training (NEET) have different psychological treatment outcomes to other young adults; any socio-demographic or treatment-related moderators of differential outcomes; and whether service-level changes are associated with better outcomes for those who are NEET. METHODS: A cohort was formed of 20 293 young adults treated with psychological therapies in eight Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services. Pre-treatment characteristics, outcomes, and moderators of differential outcomes were compared for those who were and were not NEET. Associations between outcomes and the following were assessed for those that were NEET: missing fewer sessions, attending more sessions, having a recorded diagnosis, and waiting fewer days between referral and starting treatment. RESULTS: Those who were NEET had worse outcomes: odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for reliable recovery = 0.68 (0.63-0.74), for deterioration = 1.41 (1.25-1.60), and for attrition = 1.31 (1.19-1.43). Ethnic minority participants that were NEET had better outcomes than those that were White and NEET. Living in deprived areas was associated with worse outcomes. The intensity of treatment (high or low) did not moderate outcomes, but having more sessions was associated with improved outcomes for those that were NEET: odds (per one-session increase) of reliable recovery = 1.10 (1.08-1.12), deterioration = 0.94 (0.91-0.98), and attrition = 0.68 (0.66-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier treatment, supporting those that are NEET to attend sessions, and in particular, offering them more sessions before ending treatment might be effective in improving clinical outcomes. Additional support when working with White young adults that are NEET and those in more deprived areas may also be important.

The effect of remotely delivered lifestyle interventions on cognition in older adults without dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Up to 40% of dementias may be preventable via risk factor modification. This inference has motivated the development of lifestyle interventions for reducing cognitive decline. Typically delivered to older adults face-to-face, the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated their adaptation for remote delivery. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials of remotely delivered lifestyle interventions (≥4 weeks duration and delivered >50% remotely), for adults aged ≥ 60 without dementia, examining effects on objective cognitive measures. Comparators were active (face-to-face or remote) or passive. Ten studies (n = 2967) comprising multidomain (k = 4), physical activity (k = 3) or psychosocial (k = 3) remote interventions were included. Data were synthesized using robust variance estimation meta-analysis. The pooled estimate comparing the effect of remote interventions versus comparators on cognition was not significant (g=-0.02; 95%CI [-0.14, 0.09]; p = .66); subgroup analyses by type of intervention or comparator also yielded non-significant effects. Most studies had low risk of bias. Current evidence to support remote lifestyle interventions is limited. Included studies were conducted pre-pandemic, and evaluated individual, rather than group interventions. Future studies may exploit the greater digital connectivity of older people since the pandemic. Group formats, more frequently efficacious than individual interventions in face-to-face dementia prevention trials, may be a rational approach for future remote trials.

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.