Targeting and Managing Behavioral Symptoms in Individuals with Dementia: A Randomized Trial of a Nonpharmacological Intervention

Jefferson Center for Applied Research on Aging and Health, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130, USA.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (Impact Factor: 4.22). 08/2010; 58(8):1465-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02971.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To test the effects of an intervention that helps families manage distressing behaviors in family members with dementia.
Two-group randomized trial.
In home.
Two hundred seventy-two caregivers and people with dementia.
Up to 11 home and telephone contacts over 16 weeks by health professionals who identified potential triggers of patient behaviors, including communication and environmental factors and patient undiagnosed medical conditions (by obtaining blood and urine samples) and trained caregivers in strategies to modify triggers and reduce their upset. Between 16 and 24 weeks, three telephone contacts reinforced strategy use.
Primary outcomes were frequency of targeted problem behavior and caregiver upset with and confidence managing it at 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were caregiver well-being and management skills at 16 and 24 weeks and caregiver perceived benefits. Prevalence of medical conditions for intervention patients were also examined.
At 16 weeks, 67.5% of intervention caregivers reported improvement in targeted problem behavior, compared with 45.8% of caregivers in a no-treatment control group (P=.002), and reduced upset with (P=.03) and enhanced confidence managing (P=.01) the behavior. Additionally, intervention caregivers reported less upset with all problem behaviors (P=.001), less negative communication (P=.02), less burden (P=.05), and better well-being (P=.001) than controls. Fewer intervention caregivers had depressive symptoms (53.0%) than control group caregivers (67.8%, P=.02). Similar caregiver outcomes occurred at 24 weeks. Intervention caregivers perceived more study benefits (P<.05), including ability to keep family members home, than controls. Blood and urine samples of intervention patients with dementia showed that 40 (34.1%) had undiagnosed illnesses requiring physician follow-up.
Targeting behaviors upsetting to caregivers and modifying potential triggers improves symptomatology in people with dementia and caregiver well-being and skills.


Available from: Laura N Gitlin, Jun 03, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of assistive devices in caring for individuals with dementia has not been systematically examined, particularly as it concerns managing behavioral symptoms. We tested a nonpharmacologic intervention to manage behaviors that involved instructing families in effective communication techniques, simplifying tasks and the home environment and using assistive devices. This paper describes the assistive devices provided to families assigned to intervention, extent of use of issued devices, their perceived helpfulness, and cost. Following each treatment session, occupational therapists (OT) documented time spent training in the use of strategies to manage problem behaviors. For families receiving assistive devices, OTs asked caregivers after 4 months whether they continued to use the device (yes/no), and extent to which it helped manage the targeted problems (not at all, somewhat, very helpful). We also tracked the costs associated with ordering, delivering and installing devices. Of 272 caregiver-patient dyads enrolled in the original trial, 136 were randomized to the intervention group, of whom 63 received one or more assistive devices. Of 13 intervention sessions, an average of 4 (31%) involved discussing or training caregivers in using assistive devices. A total of 197 devices (3 per dyad) were issued of which 87.6% were reported in use at 4 months. Caregivers reported that overall, devices were somewhat to very helpful. Devices ranged in cost from US$4.80 to US$282.93 with an average cost per dyad of US$152.52(SD=US$102.70) which included the device, its ordering, delivery and installation.
    Gerontechnology 07/2010; 9(3):408-414. DOI:10.4017/gt.2010.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Within the last years various interventions for cognitively impaired persons and their informal caregivers have been developed and evaluated. As different these interventions are, as different are the outcome dimensions and instruments used. There might be the potential to affect outcomes on both sides. Therefore, the aim of this review is to analyze the amount of studies that report on care recipient outcomes, to show what main outcome dimensions can be categorized, and which validated instruments are most frequently used. A systematic literature search of the electronic databases PubMed, Medline and PsycINFO was conducted. Overall 1547 studies were identified. After exclusion of duplicates and screening of titles and abstracts 162 records remained. Of those 105 would have met the inclusion criteria but 36 records (34.3%) didn’t assess any care recipient outcomes. Sixty nine studies (65.7%) reported on care recipient outcomes and were finally analyzed. The following assessments were used most in the main outcome dimensions: the Revised Memory and Behavior Problem Checklist and the Neuro-Psychiatric Inventory for problem behaviors, the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia for depressive symptoms, Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease for quality of life, the Mini Mental State Examination for cognition, and Lawton and Brody’s Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale for activities of daily living. In dementia caregiver studies care recipient outcomes should more often be assessed. For a better comparability between interventions and target groups more homogeneity of the instruments is necessary. Instruments that are not specifically developed for cognitively impaired persons should only be used if they have been validated for persons with a comparable cognitive status.
    International journal of emergency mental health 03/2015; 17(2):451-426. DOI:10.4172/1522-4821.1000186
  • Source
    BMJ: British medical journal 01/2015; · 16.30 Impact Factor