Psychological treatments for depression and anxiety in dementia and mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Experiencing anxiety and depression is very common in people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). There is uncertainty about the best treatment approach. Drug treatments may be ineffective and associated with adverse effects. Guidelines recommend psychological treatments. In this updated systematic review, we investigated the effectiveness of different psychological treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess the clinical effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing depression and anxiety in people with dementia or MCI. Secondary objectives To determine whether psychological interventions improve individuals' quality of life, cognition, activities of daily living (ADL), and reduce behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, and whether they improve caregiver quality of life or reduce caregiver burden. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and three trials registers on 18 February 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a psychological intervention for depression or anxiety with treatment as usual (TAU) or another control intervention in people with dementia or MCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A minimum of two authors worked independently to select trials, extract data, and assess studies for risk of bias. We classified the included psychological interventions as cognitive behavioural therapies (cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), behavioural activation (BA), problem-solving therapy (PST)); 'third-wave' therapies (such as mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT)); supportive and counselling therapies; and interpersonal therapies. We compared each class of intervention with control. We expressed treatment effects as standardised mean differences or risk ratios. Where possible, we pooled data using a fixed-effects model. We used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence behind each result. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies with 2599 participants. They were all published between 1997 and 2020. There were 15 trials of cognitive behavioural therapies (4 CBT, 8 BA, 3 PST), 11 trials of supportive and counselling therapies, three trials of MBCT, and one of interpersonal therapy. The comparison groups received either usual care, attention-control education, or enhanced usual care incorporating an active control condition that was not a specific psychological treatment. There were 24 trials of people with a diagnosis of dementia, and five trials of people with MCI. Most studies were conducted in community settings. We considered none of the studies to be at low risk of bias in all domains.  Cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT, BA, PST) Cognitive behavioural therapies are probably slightly better than treatment as usual or active control conditions for reducing depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.10; 13 trials, 893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may also increase rates of depression remission at the end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.84, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.88; 2 studies, with one study contributing 2 independent comparisons, 146 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were very uncertain about the effect of cognitive behavioural therapies on anxiety at the end of treatment (SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.30; 3 trials, 143 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Cognitive behavioural therapies probably improve patient quality of life (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.50; 7 trials, 459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and activities of daily living at end of treatment compared to treatment as usual or active control (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.09; 7 trials, 680 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Supportive and counselling interventions Meta-analysis showed that supportive and counselling interventions may have little or no effect on depressive symptoms in people with dementia compared to usual care at end of treatment (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07; 9 trials, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). We were very uncertain about the effects of these treatments on anxiety, which was assessed only in one small pilot study. Other interventions There were very few data and very low-certainty evidence on MBCT and interpersonal therapy, so we were unable to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CBT-based treatments added to usual care probably slightly reduce symptoms of depression for people with dementia and MCI and may increase rates of remission of depression. There may be important effect modifiers (degree of baseline depression, cognitive diagnosis, or content of the intervention). CBT-based treatments probably also have a small positive effect on quality of life and activities of daily living. Supportive and counselling interventions may not improve symptoms of depression in people with dementia. Effects of both types of treatment on anxiety symptoms are very uncertain. We are also uncertain about the effects of other types of psychological treatments, and about persistence of effects over time. To inform clinical guidelines, future studies should assess detailed components of these interventions and their implementation in different patient populations and in different settings.

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.

Aromatherapy for dementia.

BACKGROUND: Complementary therapy has received great interest within the field of dementia treatment and the use of aromatherapy and essential oils is increasing. In a growing population where the majority of patients are treated by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs, the efficacy of treatment is short term and accompanied by negative side effects. Utilisation of complimentary therapies in dementia care settings presents as one of few options that are attractive to practitioners and families as patients often have reduced insight and ability to verbally communicate adverse reactions. Amongst the most distressing features of dementia are the behavioural and psychological symptoms. Addressing this facet has received particular interest in aromatherapy trials, with a shift in focus from reducing cognitive dysfunction to the reduction of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of aromatherapy as an intervention for people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, was searched on 26 November 2012 and 20 January 2013 using the terms: aromatherapy, lemon, lavender, rose, aroma, alternative therapies, complementary therapies, essential oils. SELECTION CRITERIA: All relevant randomised controlled trials were considered. A minimum length of a trial and requirements for follow-up were not included, and participants in included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any type and severity. The review considered all trials using fragrance from plants defined as aromatherapy as an intervention with people with dementia and all relevant outcomes were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Titles and abstracts extracted by the searches were screened for their eligibility for potential inclusion in the review. For Burns 2011, continuous outcomes were estimated as the mean difference between groups and its 95% confidence interval using a fixed-effect model. For Ballard 2002, analysis of co-variance was used for all outcomes, with the nursing home being treated as a random effect. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies with 428 participants were included in this review; only two of these had published usable results. Individual patient data were obtained from one trial (Ballard 2002) and additional analyses performed. The additional analyses conducted using individual patient data from Ballard 2002 revealed a statistically significant treatment effect in favour of the aromatherapy intervention on measures of agitation (n = 71, MD -11.1, 95% CI -19.9 to -2.2) and behavioural symptoms (n = 71, MD -15.8, 95% CI -24.4 to -7.2). Burns 2011, however, found no difference in agitation (n = 63, MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.36 to 1.36), behavioural symptoms (n = 63, MD 2.80, 95% CI -5.84 to 11.44), activities of daily living (n = 63, MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.79) and quality of life (n = 63, MD 19.00, 95% CI -23.12 to 61.12). Burns 2011 and Fu 2013 found no difference in adverse effects (n = 124, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.46) when aromatherapy was compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of aromatherapy for people with dementia are equivocal from the seven trials included in this review. It is important to note there were several methodological difficulties with the included studies. More well-designed, large-scale randomised controlled trials are needed before clear conclusions can be drawn regarding the effectiveness of aromatherapy for dementia. Additionally, several issues need to be addressed, such as whether different aromatherapy interventions are comparable and the possibility that outcomes may vary for different types of dementia.

Psychological treatments for depression and anxiety in dementia and mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Experiencing anxiety and depression is very common in people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Psychological interventions have been suggested as a potential treatment for these populations. Current research suggests that people with dementia and MCI have limited opportunities for psychological treatments aimed at improving their well-being. A systematic review of the evidence on their effectiveness is likely to be useful in terms of improving outcomes for patients and for future recommendations for practice. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing anxiety and depression in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register and additional sources for both published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a psychological intervention with usual care or a placebo intervention (social contact control) in people with dementia or MCI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors worked independently to select trials, extract data and assess studies for risk of bias, using a data extraction form. We contacted authors when further information was not available from the published articles. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 439 participants with dementia were included in the review, but no studies of participants with MCI were identified. The studies included people with dementia living in the community or in nursing home care and were carried out in several countries. Only one of the studies was classified as low risk of bias. Five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias due to uncertainties around randomisation, blinding and selective reporting of results. The studies used the different psychological approaches of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy and counselling. Two studies were of multimodal interventions including a specific psychological therapy. The comparison groups received either usual care, attention-control educational programs, diagnostic feedback or services slightly above usual care.Meta-analysis showed a positive effect of psychological treatments on depression (6 trials, 439 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to -0.03, moderate quality evidence) and on clinician-rated anxiety (2 trials, 65 participants, mean difference (MD) -4.57; 95% CI -7.81 to -1.32, low quality evidence), but not on self-rated anxiety (2 trials, SMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.44 to 0.54) or carer-rated anxiety (1 trial, MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.96 to 0.16). Results were compatible with both benefit and harm on the secondary outcomes of patient quality of life, activities of daily living (ADLs), neuropsychiatric symptoms and cognition, or on carers' self-rated depressive symptoms, but most of the studies did not measure these outcomes. There were no reports of adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that psychological interventions added to usual care can reduce symptoms of depression and clinician-rated anxiety for people with dementia. We conclude that psychological interventions have the potential to improve patient well-being. Further high quality studies are needed to investigate which treatments are most effective and to evaluate the effect of psychological interventions in people with MCI.

Cognitive stimulation to improve cognitive functioning in people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive stimulation is an intervention for people with dementia which offers a range of enjoyable activities providing general stimulation for thinking, concentration and memory usually in a social setting, such as a small group. Its roots can be traced back to Reality Orientation (RO), which was developed in the late 1950s as a response to confusion and disorientation in older patients in hospital units in the USA. RO emphasised the engagement of nursing assistants in a hopeful, therapeutic process but became associated with a rigid, confrontational approach to people with dementia, leading to its use becoming less and less common.Cognitive stimulation is often discussed in normal ageing as well as in dementia. This reflects a general view that lack of cognitive activity hastens cognitive decline. With people with dementia, cognitive stimulation attempts to make use of the positive aspects of RO whilst ensuring that the stimulation is implemented in a sensitive, respectful and person-centred manner.There is often little consistency in the application and availability of psychological therapies in dementia services, so a systematic review of the available evidence regarding cognitive stimulation is important in order to identify its effectiveness and to place practice recommendations on a sound evidence base. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and impact of cognitive stimulation interventions aimed at improving cognition for people with dementia, including any negative effects. SEARCH METHODS: The trials were identified from a search of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, called ALOIS (updated 6 December 2011). The search terms used were: cognitive stimulation, reality orientation, memory therapy, memory groups, memory support, memory stimulation, global stimulation, cognitive psychostimulation. Supplementary searches were performed in a number of major healthcare databases and trial registers to ensure that the search was up to date and comprehensive. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive stimulation for dementia which incorporated a measure of cognitive change were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two review authors using a previously tested data extraction form. Study authors were contacted for data not provided in the papers. Two review authors conducted independent assessments of the risk of bias in included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were included in the review. Six of these had been included in the previous review of RO. The studies included participants from a variety of settings, interventions that were of varying duration and intensity, and were from several different countries. The quality of the studies was generally low by current standards but most had taken steps to ensure assessors were blind to treatment allocation. Data were entered in the meta-analyses for 718 participants (407 receiving cognitive stimulation, 311 in control groups). The primary analysis was on changes that were evident immediately at the end of the treatment period. A few studies provided data allowing evaluation of whether any effects were subsequently maintained. A clear, consistent benefit on cognitive function was associated with cognitive stimulation (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.41, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.57). This remained evident at follow-up one to three months after the end of treatment. In secondary analyses with smaller total sample sizes, benefits were also noted on self-reported quality of life and well-being (standardised mean difference: 0.38 [95% CI: 0.11, 0.65]); and on staff ratings of communication and social interaction (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.71). No differences in relation to mood (self-report or staff-rated), activities of daily living, general behavioural function or problem behaviour were noted. In the few studies reporting family caregiver outcomes, no differences were noted. Importantly, there was no indication of increased strain on family caregivers in the one study where they were trained to deliver the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was consistent evidence from multiple trials that cognitive stimulation programmes benefit cognition in people with mild to moderate dementia over and above any medication effects. However, the trials were of variable quality with small sample sizes and only limited details of the randomisation method were apparent in a number of the trials. Other outcomes need more exploration but improvements in self-reported quality of life and well-being were promising. Further research should look into the potential benefits of longer term cognitive stimulation programmes and their clinical significance.