Objectives Hearing, vision, and cognitive impairment commonly co‐occur in older adults. Improving sensory function may positively impact outcomes in people with dementia (PwD). We developed a “sensory intervention” (SI) to support hearing and vision in PwD. Here, we report the findings of an international open‐label field trial, and nested case series, to explore the impact of the SI on dementia‐related outcomes. Methods This was a home‐based trial conducted in France, England, and Cyprus. Participants were people with mild‐to‐moderate dementia and hearing and/or vision impairment (n = 19) and their study partners (unpaid carers; n = 19). The “basic” SI included a hearing and vision assessment and provision of glasses and/or hearing aids. A subsample received the “extended” SI with additional weekly visits from a sensory support therapist (SST). Exploratory analyses of dementia‐related, health utility and resource utilisation outcomes were performed. Results Quality of life (QoL) and sensory functional ability improved. Change in QoL exceeded the threshold for a minimum clinically important difference. There was a modest improvement (in absolute terms) post intervention in behavioural disturbance, self‐efficacy, and relationship satisfaction. Study partner time assisting instrumental activities of daily living (iADL) and supervision decreased by about 22 and 38 hours per month, respectively, although time for personal ADL support increased. Qualitative data supported effectiveness of the intervention: PwD were more socially engaged, less isolated, less dependent on study partners, and had improved functional ability and communication. Conclusions These findings support the need for a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention.

Objectives The use of assistive technology and telecare (ATT) has been promoted to manage risks associated with independent living in people with dementia but with little evidence for effectiveness. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to receive an ATT assessment followed by installation of all appropriate ATT devices or limited control of appropriate ATT. The primary outcomes were time to institutionalisation and cost-effectiveness. Key secondary outcomes were number of incidents involving risks to safety, burden and stress in family caregivers and quality of life. Results Participants were assigned to receive full ATT (248 participants) or the limited control (247 participants). After adjusting for baseline imbalance of activities of daily living score, HR for median pre-institutionalisation survival was 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; P = 0.20. There were no significant differences between arms in health and social care (mean -£909; 95% CI, -£5,336 to £3,345, P = 0.678) and societal costs (mean -£3,545; 95% CI, -£13,914 to £6,581, P = 0.499). ATT group members had reduced participant-rated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 104 weeks (mean − 0.105; 95% CI, −0.204 to −0.007, P = 0.037) but did not differ in QALYs derived from proxy-reported EQ-5D. Discussion Fidelity of the intervention was low in terms of matching ATT assessment, recommendations and installation. This, however, reflects current practice within adult social care in England. Conclusions Time living independently outside a care home was not significantly longer in participants who received full ATT and ATT was not cost-effective. Participants with full ATT attained fewer QALYs based on participant-reported EQ-5D than controls at 104 weeks.

BackgroundHearing and vision impairments are highly prevalent in people with dementia and may have a negative impact on quality of life and other dementia-related outcomes. Intervening to optimise sensory impairment and support sensory function may be a means of improving dementia-related outcomes. The SENSE-Cog trial will test whether a home-based multi-part sensory intervention is effective in improving quality of life and other key outcomes in people with dementia and hearing or vision problems (or both) and their companions.MethodsThis is an European, multi-centre, observer-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Three hundred fifty four people with dementia and hearing or vision impairment (or both) and their companions will be randomly assigned to receive either “care as usual” or a multi-component sensory intervention including assessment and correction of hearing or vision impairments (or both), home-based (maximum 10 visits over 18 weeks), therapist-delivered sensory support (that is, adherence to devices; improving the sensory environment (that is, lighting), communication training, and sign-posting to other support agencies). Change from baseline to intervention end (18 weeks) and post-intervention (36 weeks) will be compared between the two arms in the following outcomes: quality of life (primary endpoint), sensory and cognitive functional ability, relationships, mental well-being, health resource utilisation and cost-effectiveness.DiscussionThis is one of two articles outlining the SENSE-Cog trial. Here, we describe the protocol for the effectiveness of the SENSE-Cog intervention. A parallel and complementary process evaluation will be described elsewhere. If the SENSE-Cog trial demonstrates that the sensory intervention improves outcomes in dementia, we will make a toolkit of training materials, resources and information available to health and social care providers to implement the intervention in routine practice. This will be a significant contribution to the therapeutic management of people with dementia and sensory impairment.Trial registrationISRCTN (Trial ID: ISRCTN17056211) on 19 February 2018.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2973-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction The objective of this study was to define current assistive technology and telecare (ATT) practice for people with dementia living at home. Methods This is a randomized controlled trial (N = 495) of ATT assessment and ATT installation intervention, compared with control (restricted ATT package). ATT assessment and installation data were collected. Qualitative work identified value networks delivering ATT, established an ATT assessment standard. Results ATT was delivered by public and not-for-profit telecare networks. ATT assessments showed 52% fidelity to the ATT assessment standard. Areas of assessment most frequently leading to identifying ATT need were daily activities (93%), memory (89%), and problem-solving (83%). ATT needs and recommendations were weakly correlated (τ = 0.242; P < .000), with ATT recommendations and installations moderately correlated (τ = −0.470; P < .000). Half (53%) of recommended technology was not installed. Safety concerns motivated 38% of installations. Discussion Assessment recommendations were routinely disregarded at the point of installation. ATT was commonly recommended for safety and seldom for supporting leisure.

Objectives People with dementia (PwD) frequently experience hearing and vision impairment that is underrecognized and undertreated, resulting in reduced quality of life. Managing these impairments may be an important strategy to improve outcomes in PwD. Our objective was to field‐trial a multifaceted sensory intervention (SI) to enhance hearing and vision in PwD. Design An international single‐arm open‐label feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability study. Setting Home‐based setting in the United Kingdom, France, and Cyprus. Participants Adults aged 60 years and older with mild‐to‐moderate dementia and uncorrected or suboptimally corrected hearing and/or vision impairment, and their study partners (n = 19 dyads). Intervention A sensory intervention (SI), comprising assessment of hearing and vision, fitting of corrective devices (glasses, hearing aids), and home‐based support from a sensory support therapist for device adherence and maintenance, communication training, referral to support services, environmental sensory modification, and optimization of social inclusion. Measurements Ratings of study procedure feasibility, and intervention acceptability/tolerability, ascertained through questionnaires, participant diaries, therapist logbooks, and semistructured interviews. Results We successfully delivered all intervention components, and these were received and enacted as intended in all those who completed the intervention. No serious adverse events were reported. Acceptability (ie, understanding, motivation, sense of achievement) and tolerability (ie, effort, fatigue) ratings of the intervention were within a priori target ranges. We met recruitment and retention (93.8%) targets in two of the three sites. Participants completed more than 95% of diary entries, representing minimal missing data. Delays in the logistics circuit for the assessment and delivery of hearing aids and glasses were identified, requiring modification. The need for minor modifications to some outcome measures and the inclusion criteria were identified. Conclusion This is the first study combining home‐based hearing and vision remediation in PwD. The positive feasibility, acceptability, and tolerability findings suggest that a full‐scale efficacy trial, with certain modifications, is achievable.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Hearing, vision, and cognitive impairment commonly co-occur in older people. However, the rate of recognition and appropriate management of combined hearing and vision impairment in people with dementia impairment is low. The aim of this work was to codevelop internationally relevant, multidisciplinary practice recommendations for professionals involved in the diagnosis, care, and management of older people with these concurrent conditions. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We applied consensus methods with professional and lay expert stakeholders, using an adapted version of the <i>World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development</i>. The development involved 4 phases and included: (1) collating existing evidence, (2) filling the gaps in evidence, (3) prioritising evidence, and (4) refining the final list of recommendations. Each phase encompassed various methodologies including a review of existing guidelines within the 3 clinical domains, systematic reviews, qualitative studies, a clinical professional consortium, surveys, and consensus meetings with interdisciplinary domain experts. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The task force evaluated an initial list of 26 recommendations, ranking them in the order of priority. A consensus was reached on 15 recommendations, jwhich are classified into 6 domains of “awareness and knowledge,” “recognition and detection,” “evaluation,” “management,” “support,” and “services and policies.” Pragmatic options for implementation for each domain were then developed. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> This is the first set of international, interdisciplinary practice recommendations that will guide the development of multidisciplinary services and policy to improve the lives of people with dementia and hearing and vision impairment.

Introduction Assistive technology and telecare (ATT) may alleviate psychological burden in informal caregivers of people with dementia. This study assessed the impact of ATT on informal caregivers’ burden and psychological well‐being. Methods Individuals with dementia and their informal caregivers were recruited to a randomized‐controlled trial assessing effectiveness of ATT. Caregivers were allocated to two groups according to their cared‐for person's randomization to a full or basic package of ATT and were assessed on caregiver burden, state anxiety, and depression. Caregivers’ data from three assessments over 6 months of the trial were analyzed. Results No significant between‐ or within‐group differences at any time point on caregivers’ burden, anxiety, and depression levels were found. Discussion Full ATT for people with dementia did not impact caregivers’ psychological outcomes compared to basic ATT. The length of follow up was restricted to 6 months.

Background Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. Objectives This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated. Design This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Setting This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities. Participants Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package). Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview. Results Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£909, 95% confidence interval –£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£3545; 95% confidence interval –£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval –0.204 to –0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks. Limitations Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events. Conclusions A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants’ health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants’ EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Future work Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.