Lunde, Angela

Individuals with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) commonly die from dementia-related causes, but little is known regarding caregiver experiences during the end-of-life period in DLB. This reflects a critical knowledge gap given the high frequency of informal caregiving for individuals with dementia, high caregiver burden in DLB, and the fact that most individuals with DLB die from this disease. Investigators conducted telephone interviews with family members of individuals who died with DLB in the last 5 years. Investigators used a qualitative descriptive approach to analyze interview transcripts. Participants included 15 children, 13 spouses, and 2 other family members. Interviews averaged 31 min. Major themes included caregivers as the main drivers of care for individuals with DLB throughout the disease course and at the end of life, the impact of DLB features (e.g., fluctuations, hallucinations, and delusions) on end-of-life experiences, experiences relating to the caregiving role, death and post-death experiences, and supports employed by caregivers in the end-of-life period. End-of-life experiences for caregivers of individuals with DLB built on the accumulated burden of the disease course, where caregivers were often responsible for driving DLB care—from making the diagnosis to educating healthcare professionals and double-checking medical decisions. While some end-of-life experiences were consistent with those described in dementia palliative care more generally (e.g., financial stresses, poor sleep, being overwhelmed, and needing increased education and support), many DLB features specifically affected end-of-life caregiver experiences, such as the presence of delusions. Improving caregiver experiences at the end of life in DLB will require improved diagnosis and care for individuals with DLB throughout the disease course and also better strategies for treating behavioral symptoms. More research is needed regarding drivers of quality end-of-life experiences for individuals with DLB and their families and how drivers and strategies may differ between dementias.

This pilot study examined the functional impact of computerized versus compensatory calendar training in cognitive rehabilitation participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Fifty-seven participants with amnestic MCI completed randomly assigned calendar or computer training. A standard care control group was used for comparison. Measures of adherence, memory-based activities of daily living (mADLs), and self-efficacy were completed. The calendar training group demonstrated significant improvement in mADLs compared to controls, while the computer training group did not. Calendar training may be more effective in improving mADLs than computerized intervention. However, this study highlights how behavioral trials with fewer than 30–50 participants per arm are likely underpowered, resulting in seemingly null findings.

ObjectiveThis study aims to provide effect size estimates of the impact of two cognitive rehabilitation interventions provided to patients with mild cognitive impairment: computerized brain fitness exercise and memory support system on support partners' outcomes of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and partner burden.MethodsA randomized controlled pilot trial was performed.ResultsAt 6 months, the partners from both treatment groups showed stable to improved depression and anxiety scores, while partners in an untreated control group showed worsening depression and anxiety over 6 months. There were no statistically significant differences on quality of life or burden outcomes in this small pilot trial; however, effect sizes were moderate, suggesting that the sample sizes in this pilot study were not adequate to detect statistical significance.ConclusionEither form of cognitive rehabilitation may help partners' mood or anxiety, compared with providing no treatment. However, effect size estimates related to other partner outcomes (i.e., burden, quality of life) suggest that follow‐up efficacy trials will need sample sizes of at least 30–100 people per group to accurately determine significance. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.