Introduction: Nonpharmacological therapies (NPTs) can improve the quality of life (QoL) of people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and their carers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the best evidence on the effects of NPTs in AD and related disorders (ADRD) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire field. Methods: Existing reviews and major electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The deadline for study inclusion was September 15, 2008. Intervention categories and outcome domains were predefined by consensus. Two researchers working together detected 1,313 candidate studies of which 179 RCTs belonging to 26 intervention categories were selected. Cognitive deterioration had to be documented in all participants, and degenerative etiology (indicating dementia) had to be present or presumed in at least 80% of the subjects. Evidence tables, meta-analysis and summaries of results were elaborated by the first author and reviewed by author subgroups. Methods for rating level of evidence and grading practice recommendations were adapted from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Grade A treatment recommendation was achieved for institutionalization delay (multicomponent interventions for the caregiver, CG). Grade B recommendation was reached for the person with dementia (PWD) for: improvement in cognition (cognitive training, cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the PWD); activities of daily living (ADL) (ADL training, multicomponent interventions for the PWD); behavior (cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the PWD, behavioral interventions, professional CG training); mood (multicomponent interventions for the PWD); QoL (multicomponent interventions for PWD and CG) and restraint prevention (professional CG training); for the CG, grade B was also reached for: CG mood (CG education, CG support, multicomponent interventions for the CG); CG psychological well-being (cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the CG); CG QoL (multicomponent interventions for PWD and CG). Conclusion: NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG.

Objective: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) is one of the most commonly used ­assessment scales for assessing symptoms in people with dementia and other neurological disorders. This paper analyzes its conceptual framework, measurement mode, psychometric properties, and merits and problems. Method: All articles discussing the psychometric properties and factor structure of the NPI were searched for in Medline via Ovid. The abstracts of these papers were read to determine their relevance to the purpose of this paper. If deemed appropriate, a full paper was then obtained and read. Results: The NPI has reasonably good content validity and internal consistency, and good test–retest and interrater reliability. There is limited information about its sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and, in particular, responsiveness. Merits of the NPI include being comprehensive, avoiding symptom overlap, ease of use, and flexibility. It has problems in scoring (no multiples of 5, 7, and 11) and, therefore, analysis using parametric tests may not be appropriate. The use of individual subscales also warrants further investigation. Conclusion: In terms of its content and concurrent validity, intra- and interrater reliability, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency, the NPI can be considered as valid and reliable, and can be used across different ethnic groups. The tool is most likely unable to deliver as good a performance in terms of discriminating between different disorders. More studies are required to further evaluate its psychometric properties, particularly in the areas of factor structure and responsiveness. The clinical utility of the NPI also needs to be further explored.

Background: To date, no firm conclusions can be reached regarding the effectiveness of reminiscence for dementia. Researchers have emphasized that there is an urgent need for more systematic research in the area. Objective and Method: A single-blinded, parallel-groups (one intervention, one comparison, and one no-intervention group) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was adopted to investigate whether a specific reminiscence program leads to higher levels of psychosocial well-being in nursing home residents with dementia. The intervention adopted a life-story approach, while the comparison group provided friendly discussions to control for any changes in outcome as a result of social contacts and attention. The Social Engagement Scale (SES) and Well-being/Ill-being Scale (WIB) were the outcome measures used. The outcomes of the groups were examined with reference to the baseline (T0), immediately (T1), and six weeks (T2) after intervention. The final sample had 101 subjects (control group: n=30; comparison group: n=35; intervention group: n=36). Using multivariate analysis with repeated measures, no significant differences in outcome were found between groups at either T1 or T2. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed for each group comparing outcomes between T1 and T0, T2 and T1, and T2 and T0. Significant differences were observed in the intervention group when comparing T1 and T0 WIB (p=.014), but not for the other groups. Conclusion: Although the intervention did not lead to significant differences between the three groups over time, there was a significant improvement in psychosocial well-being for the intervention group.

Background: Cognitive frailty refers to the coexistence of physical frailty and cognitive impairment, and is associated with many adverse health outcomes. Although cognitive frailty is prevalent in older people, motor-cognitive training is effective at enhancing cognitive and physical function. We proposed a virtual reality (VR) simultaneous motor-cognitive training program, which allowed older people to perform daily activities in a virtual space mimicking real environments. Objective: We aimed to (1) explore the feasibility of offering VR simultaneous motor-cognitive training to older people with cognitive frailty and (2) compare its effects with an existing motor-cognitive training program in the community on the cognitive function and physical function of older people with cognitive frailty. Methods: A two-arm (1:1), assessor-blinded, parallel design, randomized controlled trial was employed. The eligibility criteria for participants were: (1) aged ≥60 years, (2) community dwelling, and (3) with cognitive frailty. Those in the intervention group received cognitive training (ie, cognitive games) and motor training (ie, cycling on an ergometer) simultaneously on a VR platform, mimicking the daily living activities of older people. Those in the control group received cognitive training (ie, cognitive games) on tablet computers and motor training (ie, cycling on the ergometer) sequentially on a non-VR platform. Both groups received a 30-minute session twice a week for 8 weeks. Feasibility was measured by adherence, adverse outcomes, and successful learning. The outcomes were cognitive function, physical frailty level, and walking speed. Results: Seventeen participants were recruited and randomized to either the control group (n=8) or intervention group (n=9). At baseline, the median age was 74.0 years (IQR 9.5) and the median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 20.0 (IQR 4.0). No significant between-group differences were found in baseline characteristics except in the number of chronic illnesses (P=.04). At postintervention, the intervention group (Z=–2.67, P=.01) showed a significantly larger improvement in cognitive function than the control group (Z=–1.19, P=.24). The reduction in physical frailty in the intervention group (Z=–1.73, P=.08) was similar to that in the control group (Z=–1.89, P=.06). Improvement in walking speed based on the Timed Up-and-Go test was moderate in the intervention group (Z=–0.16, P=.11) and greater in the control group (Z=–2.52, P=.01). The recruitment rate was acceptable (17/33, 52%). Both groups had a 100% attendance rate. The intervention group had a higher completion rate than the control group. Training was terminated for one participant (1/9, 11%) due to minimal VR sickness (Virtual Reality Sickness Questionnaire score=18.3/100). Two participants (2/8, 25%) in the control group withdrew due to moderate leg pain. No injuries were observed in either group. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that the VR simultaneous motor-cognitive training is effective at enhancing the cognitive function of older people with cognitive frailty. The effect size on frailty was close to reaching a level of significance and was similar to that observed in the control group. VR training is feasible and safe for older people with cognitive frailty. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04467216; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04467216