Ying, Gelan

Abstract INTRODUCTION Multicomponent non‐pharmacological interventions, such as the HABIT Healthy Action to Benefit Independence & Thinking® program, have shown promise for improving emotional well‐being, functioning, and self‐efficacy in both people with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) and their care partners. However, limited research has examined whether outcomes differ based on type of care partner who co‐enrolls with the pwMCI. METHODS We analyzed data from 875 pwMCI−care partner dyads who completed the HABIT program. Multivariate linear mixed‐effects regression models evaluated changes from baseline in outcomes by care partner type (spouse vs. non‐spouse) at post‐intervention, 6‐months, and 12‐ months. RESULTS At post‐intervention, pwMCI with spousal care partners demonstrated significant improvements across all outcomes from baseline, whereas those with non‐spousal partners improved in five out of seven outcomes. Across subsequent follow‐ups, pwMCI with spousal care partners showed sustained mean reductions in anxiety (post‐intervention: −2.0; 12‐month: −0.9) and increased compliance (post‐intervention: 5.7; 12‐month: 0.9). Everyday functioning in memory (post‐intervention: −0.9; 12‐months: 1.8) and executive functioning (post‐intervention: −0.7; 12‐months: 4.8) improved at post‐intervention but declined thereafter. Spousal care partners reported reduced anxiety (−1.2) and depression (−1.3) at post‐intervention, but by 12‐months they experienced increased burden, anxiety, and depression relative to baseline. Non‐spousal pwMCI–care partner dyads did not show significant change at 6 or 12‐months. DISCUSSION The HABIT intervention may have more favorable outcomes for pwMCI and care partners in spousal compared to non‐spousal dyads. These findings highlight the potential impact of care partner characteristics on both immediate and long‐term response to behavioral interventions for MCI. Highlights At post‐intervention, people with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) with spousal care partners showed significant improvements across all outcomes, while those with non‐spousal partners improved in five of seven outcomes. Gains attenuated over time for both spousal and non‐spousal dyads Spousal care partners reported reduced anxiety and depression at post‐intervention, but by 12 months they experienced increased burden, anxiety, and depression relative to baseline. Non‐spousal pwMCI–care partner dyads did not show significant change at 6 or 12 months.

AbstractBackgroundPartners of persons with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) show increased rates of depression and other mental health problems compared to the general population. While dyadic behavioral interventions such as cognitive rehabilitation have shown beneficial effects in reducing caregiver burden, research to date lacks consistent outcome measures and rarely focuses on distressed partners. Therefore, this study explored the longitudinal effect of the Healthy Action to Benefit Independence & Thinking® (HABIT) program on partners with relatively low initial adjustment level. We hypothesized that the HABIT program would improve partner adjustment in those who were distressed.MethodData from 322 pwMCI and partners were utilized from the HABIT IRB research registry. Among them, 240 completed HABIT while 82 served as an untreated control group. Consistent with our previous exploratory factor analysis, a composite partner adjustment score was calculated using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES‐D), the REACH Anxiety Inventory Form, and the Quality of Life scale for adults with Alzheimer’s Disease (QOL‐AD). We included partners with an adjustment score below the median of each group to focus on partners with low levels of baseline adjustment. Latent growth curve models were conducted at baseline, 3‐month, 6‐month, and 1‐year follow‐ups to investigate the trajectories of partner adjustment level.ResultIn the low adjustment subsample, no between group difference was found at baseline. An overall improvement in partner adjustment scores was observed only in the treatment group (b = 5.00, p<.001). The slope of change was larger (b = 3.75, p = .016) in the treatment group, indicating a faster improvement in adjustment level in HABIT partners with marginally lower baseline and higher follow‐up scores. This difference in the improvement rates was most evident at the 3‐month follow‐up (t(1, 94) = ‐2.63, p = .010) and gradually reduced in subsequent visits.ConclusionIn partners of those with MCI who have low levels of emotional adjustment, behavioral interventions like HABIT can be beneficial in accelerating improvement in their overall adjustment level and facilitate adaptation to their loved ones’ MCI symptoms compared to untreated controls. Techniques taught in dyadic interventions may serve as protective factors for mental health problems in primary caregivers of pwMCI.

AbstractBackgroundBehavioral interventions are often recommended for persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The Healthy Action to Benefit Independence & Thinking® Program (HABIT) has been shown to benefit activities of daily living (ADL) and self‐efficacy in patients at 6‐ and 12‐months post intervention. However, to date, the findings have been limited by comparison to a relatively small, untreated control group. This study attempted to explore HABIT ADL outcomes compared to a large, presumably untreated Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) MCI cohort.MethodA total of 767 participants with MCI were selected from the ADNI database, whereas 478 participants with MCI were recruited from the HABIT IRB approved research registry. Functional outcomes were assessed with informant‐based measures ‐ Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and Everyday Cognition scale (ECOG) memory and total scores – at both 6‐month‐ and 12‐month‐follow‐ups. After near‐neighbor propensity score matching with a caliper of 0.2, 288 participants from each group were matched for the FAQ, and 333 were matched for the ECOG scores. Latent growth curve models were used to test the hypothesis that the HABIT program might delay functional decline in patients with MCI.ResultAfter matching HABIT group continued to show higher initial scores on FAQ (b=.849, p=.013), and ECOG memory (b=.200, p=.004) and total scores (b=1.115, p<.001) compared to the ADNI group. Although an increase in scores was observed in both groups for each functional outcome, the slopes were steeper for the HABIT group for FAQ (b=1.194, p<.001), ECOG memory (b=.073, p=.019) and ECOG total (b=.383, p=.007).ConclusionContrary to our hypothesis, in this non‐randomized study, partners of HABIT participants with MCI reported more rapid functional decline compared to those in an imaging study. This discrepancy could be due to the HABIT group’s higher baseline impairment level even after matching. Furthermore, patients with perceived more rapid decline may be more likely to seek interventions relative to those who elect to participate in a non‐interventional imaging study. In addition, the intervention sessions could prime the partners to be more scrupulous and aware when rating functional assessments. Additional randomized research may help add clarity to these findings.

Background: In Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD) research, common outcome measures include cognitive and functional impairment, as well as persons with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) and care partner self-reported mood and quality of life. Studies commonly analyze these measures separately, which potentially leads to issues of multiple comparisons and/or multicollinearity among measures while ignoring the latent constructs they may be measuring. Objective: This study sought to examine the latent factor structure of a battery of 12-13 measures of domains mentioned above, used in a multicomponent behavioral intervention (The HABIT® program) for pwMCI and their partners. Methods: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) involved 214 pwMCI-partner pairs. Subsequent Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) used 730 pairs in both pre- and post-intervention conditions. Results: EFA generated a three-factor model. Factors could be characterized as partner adjustment (29.9%), pwMCI adjustment (18.1%), and pwMCI impairment (12.8%). The subsequent CFA confirmed our findings, and the goodness-of-fit for this model was adequate in both the pre- (CFI = 0.937; RMSEA = 0.057, p = 0.089) and post-intervention (CFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.051, p = 0.430) groups. Conclusion: Results demonstrated a stable factor structure across cohorts and intervention conditions suggesting that three broad factors may provide a straightforward and meaningful model to assess intervention outcome, at least during the MCI phase of ADRD.