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.

Objectives: Technology can assist and support both people with dementia (PWD) and caregivers. Recently, technology has begun to embed remote components. Timely with respect to the pandemic, the present work reviews the most recent literature on technology in dementia contexts together with the newest studies about technological support published until October 2020. The final aim is to provide a synthesis of the timeliest evidence upon which clinical and non-clinical decision-makers can rely to make choices about technology in the case of further pandemic waves.Methods: A review of reviews was performed alongside a review of the studies run during the first pandemic wave. PsycInfo, CINAHL, and PubMed-online were the databases inspected for relevant papers published from January 2010.Results: The search identified 420 articles, 30 of which were reviews and nine of which were new studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were first sorted according to the target population, then summarized thematically in a narrative synthesis. The studies targeting technologies for PWD were categorized as follows: monitoring and security purposes, sustaining daily life, and therapeutic interventions. Each category showed potential benefits. Differently, the interventions for caregivers were classified as informative, psycho-education programs, psychosocial-supportive, therapeutic, and cognitive/physical training. Benefits to mental health, skills learning, and social aspects emerged.Conclusions: The evidence shows that technology is well-accepted and can support PWD and caregivers to bypass physical and environmental problems both during regular times and during future pandemic waves. Nevertheless, the lack of a common methodological background is revealed by this analysis. Further and more standardized research is necessary to improve the implementation of technologies in everyday life while respecting the necessary personalization.

Objectives: The MEETINGDEM research project aimed to implement the combined Dutch Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP) for community-dwelling people with dementia and caregivers within Italy, Poland and UK and to assess whether comparable benefits were found in these countries as in the Netherlands. Method: Nine pilot Meeting Centres (MCs) participated (Italy-5, Poland-2, UK-2). Effectiveness of MCSP was compared to usual care (UC) on caregiver outcomes measuring competence (SSCQ), mental health (GHQ-12), emotional distress (NPI-Q) and loneliness (UCLA) analysed by ANCOVAs in a 6-month pre-test/post-test controlled trial. Interviews using standardised measures were completed with caregivers. Results: Pre/post data were collected for 93 caregivers receiving MCSP and 74 receiving UC. No statistically significant differences on the outcome measures were found overall. At a country level MC caregivers in Italy showed significant better general mental health (p=0.04, d=0.55) and less caregiver distress (p=0.02, d=0.62) at post-test than the UC group. Caregiver satisfaction was rated on a sample at 3 months (n=81) and 6 months (n=84). The majority of caregivers reported feeling less burdened and more supported by participating in MCSP. Conclusion: The moderate positive effect on sense of competence and the greater mental health benefit for lonely caregivers using the MCSP compared to UC as found in the original Dutch studies were not replicated. However, subject to study limitations, caregivers in Italy using MCSP benefitted more regarding their mental health and emotional distress than caregivers using 6 UC. Further evaluation of the benefits of MCSP within these countries in larger study samples is recommended.

We examined the costs and cost-effectiveness of the Meeting Centre Support Programme (MCSP) implemented and piloted in the UK, Poland and Italy, replicating the Dutch Meeting Centre model. Dutch Meeting Centres combine day services for people with dementia with carer support. Data were collected over 2015-2016 from MCSP and usual care (UC) participants (people with dementia-carer dyads) at baseline and 6 months. We examined participants' health and social care (HSC), and societal costs, including Meeting Centre (MC) attendances. Costs and outcomes in MCSP and UC groups were compared. Primary outcomes: Persons with dementia: qualityadjusted life years (EQ-5D-5L-derived); QOL-AD. DQoL was examined as a secondary outcome. Carers: Short Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were obtained by bootstrapping outcome and cost regression estimates. Eighty-three MCSP and 69 UC dyads were analysed. The 6-month cost of providing MCSP was €4,703; participants with dementia attended MC a mean of 45 times and carers 15 times. Including intervention costs, adjusted 6-month HSC costs were €5,941higherin MCSP than in UC. From the HSC perspective: in terms of QALY, the probability of cost-effectiveness was zero over willingness-to-pay (WTP) ranging from €0 to €350,000. On QOL-AD, the probability of cost-effectiveness of MCSP was 50% at WTP of €5,000 for a one-point increase. A one-point gain in the DQoL positive affect subscale had a probability of cost-effectiveness of 99% at WTP over €8,000.On SSCQ, no significant difference was found between MCSP and UC. Evidence for cost-effectiveness of MCSP was mixed but suggests that it may be cost-effective in relation to gains in dementia-specific quality of life measures. MCs offer effective tailored post-diagnostic support services to both people with dementia and carers in a | 1757 HENDERSON Et al.