Post-diagnostic psychosocial interventions could play an important role in supporting people with mild dementia remain independent. The Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention was developed to address this.

The mixed methods non-randomized, pre-post feasibility study occurred across England. Facilitators were recruited from the voluntary sector and memory services. Participants and their supporters took part in the three-session intervention. Outcome measures were collected at baseline and follow-up. To evaluate acceptability, focus groups and interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants and facilitators.

Contextual challenges to delivery including national research governance changes, affected recruitment of study sites. Thirty-four dyads consented, with 14 facilitators providing the intervention. Dyads took part in at least two sessions (79%), and 73% in all three. Outcome measures were completed by 79% without difficulty, with minimal missing data. No significant changes were found on pre and post assessments. Post hoc analysis found moderate effect size improvements for self-management (SMAS instrument) in people with dementia (d = 0.41) and quality of life (EQ5D measure) in carers (d = 0.40). Qualitative data indicated that dyads found PRIDE acceptable, as did intervention facilitators.

The three-session intervention was well accepted by participant-dyads and intervention facilitators. A randomized controlled trial of PRIDE would need to carefully consider recruitment potential across geographically varied settings and site stratification according to knowledge of contextual factors, such as the diversity of post-diagnostic services across the country. Letting sites themselves be responsible for identifying suitable intervention facilitators was successful. The self-report measures showed potential to be included in the main trial.

The goal of this study is to compare BDI-II scores obtained with two standard methods of administration in community-based older persons.

BDI-II was administered at first in the self-rated version to a sample of 60 mentally healthy older persons (age 60–87 years). Afterward, the interview-based administration was performed.

We compared the scores with nonparametric tests — Spearman’s correlation coefficient and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. We also computed internal consistency.

Self-rated BDI-II yielded significantly higher total score than interview (p < 0.001, P = 88%). The correlation between total scores was moderate (rs = 0.46, p < 0.001). Item analysis revealed a larger decrease (lower scores) in the somatic items in the interview-based version.

The two methods of administration result in different total score in healthy older persons. Therefore, interpretation of the scores should reflect the administration, which should be always specified in the studies.

Clinical research studies of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) often use Alzheimer disease (AD) as a comparison group for control of dementia variables, using tests of cognitive function to match the groups. These two dementia syndromes, however, are very different in clinical manifestations, and the comparable severity of these dementias may not be reflected by commonly used cognitive scales such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).

We evaluated different measures of dementia severity and symptoms among 20 people with bvFTD compared to 24 with early-onset AD.

Despite similar ages, disease-duration, education, and cognitive performance on two tests of cognitive function, the MMSE and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the bvFTD participants, compared to the AD participants, were significantly more impaired on other measures of disease severity, including function (Functional Assessment Questionnaire (FAQ)), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI)), and global dementia stage (Clinical Dementia Rating Scales (CDRs)). However, when we adjusted for the frontotemporal lobar degeneration-CDR (FTLD-CDR) in the analyses, the two dementia groups were comparable across all measures despite significant differences on the cognitive scales.

We found tests of cognitive functions (MMSE and MoCA) to be insufficient measures for ensuring comparability between bvFTD and AD groups. In clinical studies, the FTLD-CDR, which includes additional language and behavior items, may be a better overall way to match bvFTD and AD groups on dementia severity.

Jog Your Mind is a community-based program aiming at empowering elderly people to maintain their cognitive abilities using a multi-strategic approach including cognitively stimulating activities, mnemonic strategies, and strategies to promote healthy behaviors. It is offered to elderly individuals without known or diagnosed cognitive impairment by volunteers or community practitioners over ten weekly sessions. This paper describes the protocol of a quasi-experimental study designed to evaluate Jog Your Mind.

Community responsible to recruit participants were either assigned to the experimental group (participating in the Jog Your Mind program) or to the control group (one-year waiting list). All participants were interviewed at baseline (T1), after the program (T2), and 12 months after the baseline (T3). Primary outcomes were the use of everyday memory strategies and aids and subjective memory functioning in daily life. Secondary outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors related to cognitive vitality and cognitive abilities (memory and executive functions). Program delivery, organizational and environmental variables were recorded to document the implementation process.

Twenty-three community organizations recruited 294 community-dwelling elderly individuals in total at T1. Between T1 and T3, an attrition rate of 15.2% was obtained.

Jog Your Mind is one of the only programs targeting cognition among older adults being offered in community settings by community practitioners. The protocol described was designed with a focus on maximizing broad generalizations of the results while achieving scientific rigor. It can serve as an example to guide future research aiming to evaluate health interventions under natural conditions.