OBJECTIVE: Given this information, this study systematically explores what risk factors may be associated with ADRD in Indigenous populations.
METHODS: A search of all published literature was conducted in October 2016, March 2018, and July 2019 using Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO. Subject headings explored were inclusive of all terms related to Indigenous persons, dementia, and risk. All relevant words, phrases, and combinations were used. To be included in this systematic review, articles had to display an association of a risk factor and ADRD. Only studies that reported a quantifiable measure of risk, involved human subjects, and were published in English were included.
RESULTS: Of 237 articles originally identified through database searches, 45 were duplicates and 179 did not meet a priori inclusion criteria, resulting in 13 studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.
CONCLUSION: The large number of potentially modifiable risk factors reported relative to non-modifiable risk factors illustrates the importance of socioeconomic context in the pathogenesis of ADRD in Indigenous populations. The tendency to prioritize genetic over social explanations when encountering disproportionately high disease rates in Indigenous populations can distract from modifiable proximal, intermediate, and distal determinants of health.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
METHOD: Following the European QI protocol, auditing and data extraction of medical records of consenting residents with dementia were conducted by trained auditors with relevant health care backgrounds. Detailed field notes by the auditors were also obtained to describe the characteristics of the participating care facilities, as well as key issues and challenges encountered, for each of the 12 QIs.
RESULTS: Sixteen residential care facilities in the seven Asia-Pacific sites participated in this study. Data from 275 residents' records revealed each of the 12 Qis' endorsement varied widely within and between the study sites (0%-100%). Quality of the medical records, family and cultural differences, definitions and scoring of certain indicators, and time-consuming nature of the QI administration were main concerns for implementation.
CONCLUSION: Several items in the European QIs in the current format were deemed problematic when used to measure the quality of psychosocial care in the residential aged care settings in participating Asia-Pacific countries. We propose refinements of the European QIs for the Asian-Pacific context, taking into account multiple factors identified in this study. Our findings provide crucial insights for future research and implementation of psychosocial dementia care QIs in this region.
METHODS: We harmonised data from 13 longitudinal cohort studies of ageing in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had baseline data for social connection markers and at least two waves of cognitive scores. Follow-up periods ranged from 0 years to 15 years across cohorts. We included participants with cognitive data for at least two waves and social connection data for at least one wave. We then identified and excluded people with dementia at baseline. Primary outcomes were annual rates of change in global cognition and cognitive domain scores over time until final follow-up within each cohort study analysed by use of an individual participant data meta-analysis. Linear mixed models within cohorts used baseline social connection markers as predictors of the primary outcomes. Effects were pooled in two stages using random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the primary outcomes in the main (partially adjusted) and fully adjusted models. Partially adjusted models controlled for age, sex, and education; fully adjusted models additionally controlled for diabetes, hypertension, smoking, cardiovascular risk, and depression.
FINDINGS: Of the 40 006 participants in the 13 cohort studies, we excluded 1392 people with dementia at baseline. 38 614 individual participants were included in our analyses. For the main models, being in a relationship or married predicted slower global cognitive decline (b=0·010, 95% CI 0·000-0·019) than did being single or never married; living with others predicted slower global cognitive (b=0·007, 0·002-0·012), memory (b=0·017, 0·006-0·028), and language (b=0·008, 0·000-0·015) decline than did living alone; and weekly interactions with family and friends (b=0·016, 0·006-0·026) and weekly community group engagement (b=0·030, 0·007-0·052) predicted slower memory decline than did no interactions and no engagement. Never feeling lonely predicted slower global cognitive (b=0·047, 95% CI 0·018-0·075) and executive function (b=0·047, 0·017-0·077) decline than did often feeling lonely. Degree of social support, having a confidante, and relationship satisfaction did not predict cognitive decline across global cognition or cognitive domains. Heterogeneity was low (I2=0·00-15·11%) for all but two of the significant findings (association between slower memory decline and living with others [I2=58·33%] and community group engagement, I2=37·54-72·19%), suggesting robust results across studies.
INTERPRETATION: Good social connections (ie, living with others, weekly community group engagement, interacting weekly with family and friends, and never feeling lonely) are associated with slower cognitive decline.
FUNDING: EU Joint Programme-Neurodegenerative Disease Research grant, funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, and the US National Institute on Aging of the US National Institutes of Health.