Adel Afi

Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is one approach to quantify, weigh and rank patient preferences suitable for People living with Dementia (PlwD), due to simple pairwise comparisons of individual criteria from a complex decision problem. The objective of the present study was to design and pretest a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Methods: Two expert panels consisting of n = 4 Dementia Care Managers and n = 4 physicians to ensure content-validity, and “thinking-aloud” interviews with n = 11 PlwD and n = 3 family caregivers to ensure the face validity of the AHP survey. Following a semi-structured interview guide, PlwD were asked to assess appropriateness and comprehensibility. Data, field notes and partial interview transcripts were analyzed with a constant comparative approach, and feedback was incorporated continuously until PlwD had no further comments or struggles with survey completion. Consistency ratios (CRs) were calculated with Microsoft^® Excel and ExpertChoice Comparion^®. Results: Three main categories with sub-categories emerged: (1) Content: clear task introduction, (sub)criteria description, criteria homogeneity, (sub)criteria appropriateness, retest questions and sociodemography for heterogeneity; (2) Format: survey structure, pairwise comparison sequence, survey length, graphical design (incl. AHP scale), survey procedure explanation, survey assistance and response perspective; and (3) Layout: easy wording, short sentences and visual aids. Individual CRs ranged from 0.08 to 0.859, and the consolidated CR was 0.37 (0.038). Conclusions: Our formative qualitative study provides initial data for the design of a dementia-friendly AHP survey. Consideration of our findings may contribute to face and content validity in future quantitative preference research in dementia.

Background: Person-centered care (PCC) requires knowledge about patient preferences. This formative qualitative study aimed to identify (sub)criteria of PCC for the design of a quantitative, choice-based instrument to elicit patient preferences for person-centered dementia care. Method: Interviews were conducted with n = 2 dementia care managers, n = 10 People living with Dementia (PlwD), and n = 3 caregivers (CGs), which followed a semi-structured interview guide including a card game with PCC criteria identified from the literature. Criteria cards were shown to explore the PlwD’s conception. PlwD were asked to rank the cards to identify patient-relevant criteria of PCC. Audios were verbatim-transcribed and analyzed with qualitative content analysis. Card game results were coded on a 10-point-scale, and sums and means for criteria were calculated. Results: Six criteria with two sub-criteria emerged from the analysis; social relationships (indirect contact, direct contact), cognitive training (passive, active), organization of care (decentralized structures and no shared decision making, centralized structures and shared decision making), assistance with daily activities (professional, family member), characteristics of care professionals (empathy, education and work experience) and physical activities (alone, group). Dementia-sensitive wording and balance between comprehensibility vs. completeness of the (sub)criteria emerged as additional themes. Conclusions: Our formative study provides initial data about patient-relevant criteria of PCC to design a quantitative patient preference instrument. Future research may want to consider the balance between (sub)criteria comprehensibility vs. completeness.

Background: Physical activity (PA) has emerged as an alternative nonpharmacological approach to effectively address the effects of dementia. The primary aim was to identify and summarize PA interventions and their effects on cognitive function among persons with dementia (PwD). Methods: A systematic review was conducted with a meta-analysis using different electronic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, APA PsycNET, and the Web of Science. The identified and selected studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were written in English, published between 2000 and 2020, and implemented among PwD who received a PA intervention and whose cognitive function was measured at baseline and during a follow-up. Results: Twenty-two PA intervention studies met the eligibility criteria and showed a medium-size effect on the cognitive function of PwD, 0.4803 (95% CI = 0.1901–0.7704), with a high percentage of heterogeneity (I² = 86%, p ≤ 0.0001). Moreover, this review complements other reviews by including eight studies that have not previously been considered. Overall, studies have methodological limitations. However, six studies implemented in the past five years have shown more robust methodological designs, including larger sample sizes and more comprehensive measurement tools. Conclusion: It is not yet possible to draw a conclusion on the ideal PA intervention for this population due to the high proportion of heterogeneity within the included studies. More emphasis is needed on the intensity of PA monitoring and adherence to such programs.