Navigating the future of Alzheimer's care in Ireland - a service model for disease-modifying therapies in small and medium-sized healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: A new class of antibody-based drug therapy with the potential for disease modification is now available for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the complexity of drug eligibility, administration, cost, and safety of such disease modifying therapies (DMTs) necessitates adopting new treatment and care pathways. A working group was convened in Ireland to consider the implications of, and health system readiness for, DMTs for AD, and to describe a service model for the detection, diagnosis, and management of early AD in the Irish context, providing a template for similar small-medium sized healthcare systems. METHODS: A series of facilitated workshops with a multidisciplinary working group, including Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) members, were undertaken. This informed a series of recommendations for the implementation of new DMTs using an evidence-based conceptual framework for health system readiness based on [1] material resources and structures and [2] human and institutional relationships, values, and norms. RESULTS: We describe a hub-and-spoke model, which utilises the existing dementia care ecosystem as outlined in Ireland's Model of Care for Dementia, with Regional Specialist Memory Services (RSMS) acting as central hubs and Memory Assessment and Support Services (MASS) functioning as spokes for less central areas. We provide criteria for DMT referral, eligibility, administration, and ongoing monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare systems worldwide are acknowledging the need for advanced clinical pathways for AD, driven by better diagnostics and the emergence of DMTs. Despite facing significant challenges in integrating DMTs into existing care models, the potential for overcoming challenges exists through increased funding, resources, and the development of a structured national treatment network, as proposed in Ireland's Model of Care for Dementia. This approach offers a replicable blueprint for other healthcare systems with similar scale and complexity.

Dissonance in the face of Alzheimer's disease breakthroughs: clinician and lay stakeholder acceptance, concerns and willingness to pay for emerging disease-modifying therapies.

BACKGROUND: Introducing new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease demands a fundamental shift in diagnosis and care for most health systems around the world. Understanding the views of health professionals, potential patients, care partners and taxpayers is crucial for service planning and expectation management about these new therapies. AIMS: To investigate the public's and professionals' perspectives regarding (1) acceptability of new DMTs for Alzheimer's disease; (2) perceptions of risk/benefits; (3) the public's willingness to pay (WTP). METHOD: Informed by the 'theoretical framework of acceptability', we conducted two online surveys with 1000 members of the general public and 77 health professionals in Ireland. Descriptive and multivariate regression analyses examined factors associated with DMT acceptance and WTP. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals had a higher acceptance (65%) than the general public (48%). Professionals were more concerned about potential brain bleeds (70%) and efficacy (68%), while the public focused on accessibility and costs. Younger participants (18-24 years) displayed a higher WTP. Education and insurance affected WTP decisions. CONCLUSIONS: This study exposes complex attitudes toward emerging DMTs for Alzheimer's disease, challenging conventional wisdom in multiple dimensions. A surprising 25% of the public expressed aversion to these new treatments, despite society's deep-rooted fear of dementia in older age. Healthcare professionals displayed nuanced concerns, prioritising clinical effectiveness and potential brain complications. Intriguingly, younger, better-educated and privately insured individuals exhibited a greater WTP, foregrounding critical questions about healthcare equity. These multifaceted findings serve as a guidepost for healthcare strategists, policymakers and ethicists as we edge closer to integrating DMTs into Alzheimer's disease care.

Dementia research in Ireland: What should we prioritise?

Background: Dementia research prioritisation allows for the systematic allocation of investment in dementia research by governments, funding agencies and the private sector. There is currently a lack of information available in Ireland regarding priority areas for dementia research. To address this gap, a dementia research prioritisation exercise was undertaken, consisting of an online survey of professionals in the dementia field and workshops for people living with dementia and family carers. Methods: (1) An anonymous online survey of professionals, based on an existing WHO global survey: the global survey was adapted to an Irish context and participants were asked to score 65 thematic research avenues under five criteria; (2) A mixed-methods exercise for people living with dementia and family carers: this involved two facilitated workshops where participants voted on the research themes they felt were important to them and should be addressed through research. Results: Eight of the top ten research priorities in the survey of professionals ( n=108) were focused on the delivery and quality of care and services for people with dementia and carers. Other research avenues ranked in the top ten focused on themes of timely and accurate diagnosis of dementia in primary health-care practices and diversifying therapeutic approaches in clinical trials. Participants in the workshops ( n=13) ranked 'better drugs and treatment for people with dementia', 'dementia prevention/ risk reduction' and 'care for people with dementia and carers' as their top priority areas. Conclusions: Findings from this prioritisation exercise will inform and motivate policymakers, funders and researchers to support and conduct dementia-focused research and ensure that the limited resources made available are spent on research that has the most impact for those who will benefit from and use the results of research.

Freedom and loneliness: dementia caregiver experiences of the nursing home transition.

BACKGROUND: the transition to nursing home care has previously been linked to negative outcomes for spousal caregivers of persons with dementia (PwD). However, little is known about the experience or trajectory of loneliness in spousal caregivers during this time. OBJECTIVES: to explore experiences of loneliness in caregivers during the nursing home admission of their spouse or partner with dementia. METHODS: semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 individuals living in Ireland between Oct 2020 and June 2021, who were married to/partnered with a PwD who had, in the past 7 years, moved to full-time nursing home care. Data were collected and analysed using a deductive qualitative analytic strategy in the grounded theory tradition. RESULTS: data were interpreted in the context of Weiss' typology of social and emotional loneliness and indicated that social loneliness increased for many at the point of diagnosis, decreasing somewhat after the transition, while emotional loneliness increased across the transition. Data were used to refine an existing synthesised model of loneliness, providing an updated model of the causes and contexts of loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: the transition to nursing home care differentially affects loneliness subtypes. Results have implications for other transitions, which should be assessed in terms of various subtypes of loneliness. Our refined theoretical synthesis model of loneliness also warrants further evaluation.

Minding the gap: identifying values to enable public and patient involvement at the pre-commencement stage of research projects.

BACKGROUND: The University College Dublin (UCD) Public and Patient Invovlement (PPI) ignite program is focused on embedding PPI in health and social care related research, education and training, professional practice and administration. During a PPI knowledge sharing event challenges were noted during the pre-commencement stage of research projects. This stage includes the time before a research projects/partnership starts or when funding is being applied for. As a response, we agreed there was a need to spend time developing a values-based approach to be used from the pre-commencement of PPI projects and partnerships. Values are deeply held ideals that people consider to be important. They are vital in shaping our attitudes and motivating our choices and behaviours. METHODS: Using independent facilitators, we invited a diverse group of participants to a full-day workshop in February. During the workshop, the concept of a values statement and values-based approaches was introduced. The group via a majority consensus, agreed on a core set of values and a shared understanding of them. After the workshop, a draft was shared with participants for further comment and final agreement. RESULTS: The workshop had 22 people representing experts by experience, PPI charity partners, funders, academics and national PPI Ignite partners. The group via consensus identified four values of respect, openness, reciprocity and flexibility for the pre-commencement stage. A frequently reported experience of PPI partners was that some felt that the pre-commencement activities appeared at times like a performance; an act that had to be completed in order to move to the next stage rather than a genuine interest in a mutually beneficial partnership. Being open and transparent with all invovled that the funding application may not be successful was stressed. Another important feature related to 'openness' was the 'spaces' and 'places' in which meetings between partners could occur in an accessible and equitable way. The issue of 'space' is particularly critical for the involvement of seldom heard groups. The benefits of the research are often clear for academics, but for PPI partners, these are often less certain. To achieve reciprocity, academic and PPI partners need to engage in a timely, repeated and transparent dialogue to achieve beneficial outcomes for all stakeholders. Being open to new inputs and differing modes of knowledge and ideas was also stressed. For some, this will require a change in attitudes and behaviours and should result in more collective decision making. Several areas were identified using the four values. CONCLUSIONS: This work via majority consensus identified four values of respect, openness, reciprocity, and flexibility for the pre-commencement stage. These values should be used to support inclusive, effective and collective PPI across all stages of involvement. We hope this work will stimulate further action in this area. In particular, we would welcome the evaluation of these values involving diverse PPI groups.

People with dementia and caregiver preferences for digital life story work service interventions. A discrete choice experiment and digital survey.

Objectives: Little is understood about the optimal way to implement digital life story work (LSW). The aim of this research was to explore the preferences of people with dementia and caregivers in relation to digital LSW in an effort to improve future engagement.Methods: 67 caregivers responded to an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey containing 16 pairwise choices. The DCE was analysed using a random effects logit model. Willingness to pay and odds ratios were also calculated. 17 participants with dementia completed an online survey in which they made choices about different aspects of digital LSW services.Results: Caregivers valued four out of five attributes [setting (p = 0.000), price (p = 0.000), elementary usability and accessibility (p = 0.001), and follow-up assistance (p = 0.034)]. In data from participants with dementia, the most preferred setting was individual one-to-one (70.6%), and the most preferred use of digital life storybooks was to share memories with others (64.7%). Marginally more participants with dementia said they would pay for the service (53%) rather than only use it free of charge (47%). Those with advanced ICT skills preferred to learn how to use the digital life storybook (64.7%), while those with elementary/intermediate skills, preferred to have it created for them (35.3%).Conclusions: This exploratory study provides an insight into preferences of people with dementia and caregivers, of how digital LSW is implemented. Results can contribute to future planning and tailoring of these services.

Reminiscence therapy for dementia: an abridged Cochrane systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Reminiscence therapy (RT) is a popular psychosocial intervention widely used in dementia care. It involves discussion of past events and experiences, using tangible prompts to evoke memories or stimulate conversation. Areas covered: The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of RT for people with dementia. It includes studies from the specialized register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS). Searches yielded 185 records of which 22 (n = 1972) were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis comprised of data from 16 studies (n = 1749 participants). The review included four large multicenter high-quality studies and several smaller studies of reasonable quality. Outcomes of interest were quality of life, communication, depression, and cognition at posttreatment and later follow-up. Expert commentary: RT has the potential to improve psychosocial outcomes for people with dementia. Effects are small and can be inconsistent, varying across intervention modality and setting. Individual approaches were associated with improved cognition and mood. Group approaches were linked to improved communication. The impact on quality of life appeared most promising in care home settings. Diversity in reminiscence approaches makes it difficult to compare them, and the field would benefit from the development, evaluation, use, and sharing of standardized approaches.

Reminiscence therapy for dementia.

BACKGROUND: This updated Cochrane Review of reminiscence therapy (RT) for dementia was first published in 1998, and last updated in 2005. RT involves the discussion of memories and past experiences with other people using tangible prompts such as photographs or music to evoke memories and stimulate conversation. RT is implemented widely in a range of settings using a variety of formats. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of RT on people living with dementia and their carers, taking into account differences in its implementation, including setting (care home, community) and modality (group, individual). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register) on 6 April 2017 using the search term 'reminiscence.' SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials of RT for dementia in which the duration of the intervention was at least four weeks (or six sessions) and that had a 'no treatment' or passive control group. Outcomes of interest were quality of life (QoL), cognition, communication, behaviour, mood and carer outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (LOP and EF) independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from all sufficiently similar studies reporting on each outcome. We undertook subgroup analysis by setting (community versus care home) and by modality (individual versus group). We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 studies involving 1972 people with dementia. Meta-analyses included data from 16 studies (1749 participants). Apart from six studies with risk of selection bias, the overall risk of bias in the studies was low.Overall, moderate quality evidence indicated RT did not have an important effect on QoL immediately after the intervention period compared with no treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.33; I2 = 59%; 8 studies; 1060 participants). Inconsistency between studies mainly related to the study setting. There was probably a slight benefit in favour of RT in care homes post-treatment (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 3 studies; 193 participants), but little or no difference in QoL in community settings (867 participants from five studies).For cognitive measures, there was high quality evidence for a very small benefit, of doubtful clinical importance, associated with reminiscence at the end of treatment (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; 14 studies; 1219 participants), but little or no difference at longer-term follow-up. There was a probable slight improvement for individual reminiscence and for care homes when analysed separately, but little or no difference for community settings or for group studies. Nine studies included the widely used Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) as a cognitive measure, and, on this scale, there was high quality evidence for an improvement at the end of treatment (mean difference (MD) 1.87 points, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.20; 437 participants). There was a similar effect at longer-term follow-up, but the quality of evidence for this analysis was low (1.8 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 3.65).For communication measures, there may have been a benefit of RT at the end of treatment (SMD -0.51 points, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.05; I2 = 62%; negative scores indicated improvement; 6 studies; 249 participants), but there was inconsistency between studies, related to the RT modality. At follow-up, there was probably a slight benefit of RT (SMD -0.49 points, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.21; 4 studies; 204 participants). Effects were uncertain for individual RT, with very low quality evidence available. For reminiscence groups, evidence of moderate quality indicated a probable slight benefit immediately (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.06; 4 studies; 153 participants), and at later follow-up. Community participants probably benefited at end of treatment and follow-up. For care home participants, the results were inconsistent between studies and, while there may be an improvement at follow-up, at the end of treatment the evidence quality was very low and effects were uncertain.Other outcome domains examined for people with dementia included mood, functioning in daily activities, agitation/irritability and relationship quality. There were no clear effects in these domains. Individual reminiscence was probably associated with a slight benefit on depression scales, although its clinical importance was uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.06; 4 studies; 131 participants). We found no evidence of any harmful effects on people with dementia.We also looked at outcomes for carers, including stress, mood and quality of relationship with the person with dementia (from the carer's perspective). We found no evidence of effects on carers other than a potential adverse outcome related to carer anxiety at longer-term follow-up, based on two studies that had involved the carer jointly in reminiscence groups with people with dementia. The control group carers were probably slightly less anxious (MD 0.56 points, 95% CI -0.17 to 1.30; 464 participants), but this result is of uncertain clinical importance, and is also consistent with little or no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of reminiscence interventions are inconsistent, often small in size and can differ considerably across settings and modalities. RT has some positive effects on people with dementia in the domains of QoL, cognition, communication and mood. Care home studies show the widest range of benefits, including QoL, cognition and communication (at follow-up). Individual RT is associated with probable benefits for cognition and mood. Group RT and a community setting are associated with probable improvements in communication. The wide range of RT interventions across studies makes comparisons and evaluation of relative benefits difficult. Treatment protocols are not described in sufficient detail in many publications. There have been welcome improvements in the quality of research on RT since the previous version of this review, although there still remains a need for more randomised controlled trials following clear, detailed treatment protocols, especially allowing the effects of simple and integrative RT to be compared.