A consensus-based operationalization of social health in dementia is proposed, and factors that can influence, and interventions that improve, social health in dementia identified. Recommendations are made for research and practice.

Background: Enabling people with dementia to 'live well' is a policy and research priority in many countries. However, instruments for measuring outcomes of psychosocial interventions designed to promote well-being in dementia are often derived from a symptom-focused, loss/deficit approach, or from broad quality of life concepts. A pan-European dementia working group called for research on the development of an alternative asset/strengths-based conceptual framework of well-being in dementia. This paper takes forward this recommendation by developing such a framework and using this to map relevant self-report outcome measures. Methods: Three scoping reviews of published studies were conducted iteratively. First, we examined the literature on lived experiences of well-being and quality of life in people with dementia and then the wider dementia literature for application of well-being constructs. The synthesised findings generated conceptual domains of well-being in people with dementia. Corresponding self-report instruments used in dementia research were scoped, categorised within the conceptual framework and their potential value in measuring outcomes for people with dementia was examined. Findings: Six conceptual domains for the measurement of well-being and 35 self-report instruments that have been used with people with dementia were identified. Six instruments were developed specifically for people with dementia, five were derived from the gerontological literature and 24 from the well-being literature. Fifteen instruments and one sub-scale have been examined for psychometric properties amongst people with dementia. To date, 20 have been used as outcome measures, with seven measuring change over time. A number of identified instruments utilise traditional retrospective Likert-scaling response formats, limiting their potential for use with some groups of people with dementia. Conclusion: An assets/strengths-based framework is presented, outlining structural domains for selecting self-report measures of well-being in people with dementia. It provides a foundation for enhancing research into processes and outcomes of psychosocial interventions, including instrument development, more precise matching of intervention aims with outcome measurement, and newer technology-based 'in-the-moment' measurement.

Background Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies. Objective Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods. Search strategy and inclusion criteria We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed. Main results A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement. Discussion and conclusions Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

In clinical trials which target pathophysiological mechanisms associated with Alzheimer’s disease, research participants who are recruited based on biomarker test results should be informed about their increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s dementia. This paper presents the results of a qualitative focus group study of attitudes and concerns toward learning information about biomarker-based risk status among healthy research participants in the United Kingdom and Spain and people with dementia and their supporters/caregivers from countries represented in the European Working Group of People with Dementia of Alzheimer Europe. The study identified expectations related to learning risk status and preferences related to the content, quality, and follow-up of the disclosure process. The latter emphasize distinctions between risk and diagnoses, the importance of clear information about risk, and suggestions for risk reduction, as well as expectations for follow up and support. The implications of these preferences for practice are discussed. Providing details of research participants’ experience and views may serve as a guide for the development of processes for the responsible disclosure of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers.

Biomedical research aimed at the development of therapies for chronic and late-onset conditions increasingly concentrates on the early treatment of symptom-less disease. This broad trend is evidenced in prominent shifts in contemporary dementia research. Revised diagnostic criteria and new approaches to clinical trials propose a focus on earlier stages of disease and prompt concerns about the implications of communicating test results associated with the risk of developing dementia when no effective treatments are available. This article examines expectations of the implications of learning test results related to dementia risk, based on focus group research conducted in the UK and Spain. It points to the extended social and temporal aspects of the dementia risk experience. Three key dimensions of this risk experience are elaborated: living 'at risk', represented in efforts to reduce risk and plan for the future; 'with risk', through vigilance towards cognitive health and earlier or prolonged contact with healthcare services; and finally, 'beyond risk' through a cessation of the self in its current social, legal and financial form. A virtual abstract of this paper can be viewed at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_979cmCmR9rLrKuD7z0ycA.

Objectives Timely diagnosis of dementia is recommended in national strategies. To what extent is it occurring across Europe, what factors are associated with it, and what is the impact on carers emotions of quality of diagnostic disclosure? Methods/design Survey of family carers recruited through 5 Alzheimer's associations (Czech Republic, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Scotland). One thousand four hundred and nine carers participated, 84% completing online. Fifty‐two percent were adult children, and 37% were spouses, with median age 57. Most (83%) were female. Results Nearly half (47%) of carers reported that an earlier diagnosis would have been preferable. Delaying factors included reluctance of the person with dementia, lack of awareness of dementia, the response of professionals, and delays within health systems. Recent diagnoses were no more likely to be considered timely, although professional responses appeared to be improving. Delayed diagnoses were more often reported by adult child carers and where the diagnosis was made in the later stages of dementia, or another condition had been previously diagnosed. In all countries except Italy, the diagnosis was shared with the person with dementia in the majority of cases. Timely diagnoses and higher quality diagnostic disclosure are associated with better adjustment and less negative emotional impact on carers in the short and medium term. Conclusions Although the study sample were well educated and likely to be in touch with an Alzheimer organisation, many continued to experience the diagnosis of dementia as coming too late, and further work on public awareness, as well as on professional responses, is needed.

Background: Alzheimer's Disease (AD) impairs the ability to carry out daily activities, reduces independence and quality of life and increases caregiver burden. Our understanding of functional decline has traditionally relied on reports by family and caregivers, which are subjective and vulnerable to recall bias. The Internet of Things (IoT) and wearable sensor technologies promise to provide objective, affordable, and reliable means for monitoring and understanding function. However, human factors for its acceptance are relatively unexplored.Objective: The Public Involvement (PI) activity presented in this paper aims to capture the preferences, priorities and concerns of people with AD and their caregivers for using monitoring wearables. Their feedback will drive device selection for clinical research, starting with the study of the RADAR-AD project.Method: The PI activity involved the Patient Advisory Board (PAB) of the RADAR-AD project, comprised of people with dementia across Europe and their caregivers (11 and 10, respectively). A set of four devices that optimally represent various combinations of aspects and features from the variety of currently available wearables (e.g., weight, size, comfort, battery life, screen types, water-resistance, and metrics) was presented and experienced hands-on. Afterwards, sets of cards were used to rate and rank devices and features and freely discuss preferences.Results: Overall, the PAB was willing to accept and incorporate devices into their daily lives. For the presented devices, the aspects most important to them included comfort, convenience and affordability. For devices in general, the features they prioritized were appearance/style, battery life and water resistance, followed by price, having an emergency button and a screen with metrics. The metrics valuable to them included activity levels and heart rate, followed by respiration rate, sleep quality and distance. Some concerns were the potential complexity, forgetting to charge the device, the potential stigma and data privacy.Conclusions: The PI activity explored the preferences, priorities and concerns of the PAB, a group of people with dementia and caregivers across Europe, regarding devices for monitoring function and decline, after a hands-on experience and explanation. They highlighted some expected aspects, metrics and features (e.g., comfort and convenience), but also some less expected (e.g., screen with metrics).

Background: Prognostic studies in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD) mainly predicted time to dementia. However, it is questionable whether onset of dementia is the most relevant outcome along the AD disease trajectory from the perspective of patients and their care partners. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most relevant outcomes from the viewpoint of patients and care partners. Methods:We used a two-step, mixed-methods approach. As a first step we conducted four focus groups in the Netherlands to elicit a comprehensive list of outcomes considered important by patients (n = 12) and care partners (n = 14) in the prognosis of AD. The focus groups resulted in a list of 59 items, divided into five categories. Next, in an online European survey, we asked participants (n = 232; 99 patients, 133 care partners) to rate the importance of all 59 items (5-point Likert scale). As participants were likely to rate a large number of outcomes as "important" (4) or "very important" (5), we subsequently asked them to select the three items they considered most important. Results:The top-10 lists of items most frequently mentioned as "most important" by patients and care partners were merged into one core outcome list, comprising 13 items. Both patients and care partners selected outcomes from the category "cognition" most often, followed by items in the categories "functioning and dependency" and "physical health." No items from the category "behavior and neuropsychiatry" and "social environment" ended up in our core list of relevant outcomes. Conclusion:We identified a core list of outcomes relevant to patients and care partner, and found that prognostic information related to cognitive decline, dependency, and physical health are considered most relevant by both patients and their care partners.