Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research.Objectives: To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified.Design: A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England.Participants: Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks.Results: In the scoping 51% (n = 92) of studies had evidence of PPI and in the survey 79% (n = 80), with funder requirements and study design the strongest influence on the extent of PPI. There was little transparency about PPI in publicly accessible information. In case studies, context–mechanism–outcome configurations suggested that six salient actions were required for effective PPI. These were a clear purpose, role and structure for PPI; ensuring diversity; whole research team engagement with PPI; mutual understanding and trust between the researchers and lay representatives; ensuring opportunities for PPI throughout the research process; and reflecting on, appraising and evaluating PPI within a research study. PPI models included a ‘one-off’ model with limited PPI, a fully intertwined model in which PPI was fully embedded and an outreach model with lay representatives linking to broader communities. Enabling contexts included funder, topic/design, resources, research host, organisation of PPI and, most importantly, relationships. In some case studies, lack of coherence in defining PPI persisted, with evidence of a dual role of PPI representative/study participant. Evidence of PPI outcomes included changes to study design, improvements to recruitment materials and rates, and dissemination.Conclusions: Six salient actions were required for effective PPI and were characterised by a shared understanding of moral and methodological purposes of PPI, a key individual co-ordinating PPI, ensuring diversity, a research team positive about PPI input and fully engaged with it, based on relationships that were established and maintained over time, and PPI being evaluated in a proactive and systematic approach. Future work recommendations include exploring the impact of virtual PPI, cost analysis and economic evaluation of the different models of PPI, and a longer-term follow-up study of the outcomes of PPI on research findings and impact on services and clinical practice.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

There is widespread evidence both of the exclusion of older people from clinical research, and of under-recruitment to clinical trials. This review and opinion piece provides practical advice to assist researchers both to adopt realistic, achievable recruitment rates and to increase the number of older people taking part in research. It analyses 14 consecutive recently published trials, providing the number needed to be screened to recruit one older participant (around 3:1), numbers excluded (up to 49%), drop out rates (5–37%) and whether the planned power was achieved. The value of planning and logistics are outlined, and approaches to optimising recruitment in hospital, primary care and care home settings are discussed, together with the challenges of involving older adults with mental incapacity and those from minority groups in research. The increasingly important task of engaging older members of the public and older patients in research is also discussed. Increasing the participation of older people in research will improve the generalisability of research findings and inform best practice in the clinical management of the growing older population.

Early diagnosis and intervention for people with dementia is increasingly considered a priority, but practitioners are concerned with the effects of earlier diagnosis and interventions on patients and caregivers. This systematic review evaluates the qualitative evidence about how people accommodate and adapt to the diagnosis of dementia and its immediate consequences, to guide practice. We systematically reviewed qualitative studies exploring experiences of community-dwelling individuals with dementia, and their carers, around diagnosis and the transition to becoming a person with dementia. We searched PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index (all searched in May 2010 with no date restrictions; PubMed search updated in February 2012), checked reference lists, and undertook citation searches in PubMed and Google Scholar (ongoing to September 2011). We used thematic synthesis to identify key themes, commonalities, barriers to earlier diagnosis, and support identified as helpful. We identified 126 papers reporting 102 studies including a total of 3,095 participants. Three overarching themes emerged from our analysis: (1) pathways through diagnosis, including its impact on identity, roles, and relationships; (2) resolving conflicts to accommodate a diagnosis, including the acceptability of support, focusing on the present or the future, and the use or avoidance of knowledge; and (3) strategies and support to minimise the impact of dementia. Consistent barriers to diagnosis include stigma, normalisation of symptoms, and lack of knowledge. Studies report a lack of specialist support particularly post-diagnosis. There is an extensive body of qualitative literature on the experiences of community-dwelling individuals with dementia on receiving and adapting to a diagnosis of dementia. We present a thematic analysis that could be useful to professionals working with people with dementia. We suggest that research emphasis should shift towards the development and evaluation of interventions, particularly those providing support after diagnosis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary. Dementia is a decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily life. Alzheimer disease is the most common type of dementia. People with dementia usually have problems with two or more cognitive functions—thinking, language, memory, understanding, and judgment. Dementia is rare before the age of 65, but about a quarter of people over 85 have dementia. Because more people live longer these days, the number of patients with dementia is increasing. It is estimated that today between 40 and 50 million people live with dementia worldwide. By 2050, this number is expected to triple. One way to study what dementia means to patients and their carers (most often spouses or other family members) is through qualitative research. Qualitative research aims to develop an in-depth understanding of individuals' experiences and behavior, as well as the reasons for their feelings and actions. In qualitative studies, researchers interview patients, their families, and doctors. When the studies are published, they usually contain direct quotations from interviews as well as summaries by the scientists who designed the interviews and analyzed the responses. This study was done to better understand the experiences and attitudes of patients and their carers surrounding dementia diagnosis. It focused on patients who lived and were cared for within the community (as opposed to people living in senior care facilities or other institutions). Most cases of dementia are progressive, meaning symptoms get worse over time. Diagnosis often happens at an advanced stage of the disease, and some patients never receive a formal diagnosis. This could have many possible reasons, including unawareness or denial of symptoms by patients and people close to them. The study was also trying to understand barriers to early diagnosis and what type of support is useful for newly diagnosed patients and carers. The researchers conducted a systematic search for published qualitative research studies that reported on the experience, beliefs, feelings, and attitudes surrounding dementia diagnosis. They identified and reviewed 102 such studies. Among the quotations and summaries of the individual studies, they looked for prominent and recurring themes. They also compared and contrasted the respective experiences of patients and carers. Overall, they found that the complexity and variety of responses to a diagnosis of dementia means that making the diagnosis and conveying it to patients and carers is challenging. Negative connotations associated with dementia, inconsistent symptoms, and not knowing enough about the signs and symptoms were commonly reported barriers to early dementia diagnosis. It was often the carer who initiated the search for help from a doctor, and among patients, willingness and readiness to receive a diagnosis varied. Being told one had dementia had a big impact on a patient's identity and often caused feelings of loss, anger, fear, and frustration. Spouses had to adjust to increasingly unequal relationships and the transition to a role as carer. The strain associated with this often caused health problems in the carers as well. On the other hand, studies examining the experience of couples often reported that they found ways to continue working together as a team. Adjusting to a dementia diagnosis is a complex process. Initially, most patients and carers experienced conflicts, for example, between autonomy and safety, between recognizing the need for help but reluctance to accept it, or between living in the present and dealing with anxiety about and preparing for the future. As these were resolved and as the disease progressed, the attitudes of patients and carers towards dementia often became more balanced and accepting. Many patients and their families adopted strategies to cope with the impact of dementia on their lives in order to manage the disease and maintain some sort of normal life. These included practical strategies involving reminders, social strategies such as relying on family support, and emotional strategies such as using humor. At some point many patients and carers reported that they were able to adopt positive mindsets and incorporate dementia in their lives. The studies also pointed to an urgent need for support from outside the family, both right after diagnosis and subsequently. General practitioners and family physicians have important roles in helping patients and carers to get access to information, social and psychological support, and community care. The need for information was reported to be ongoing and varied, and meeting it required a variety of sources and formats. Key needs for patients and carers mentioned in the studies include information on financial aids and entitlements early on, and continued access to supportive professionals and specialists. Qualitative studies to date on how patients and carers respond to a diagnosis of dementia provide a fairly detailed picture of their experiences. The summary provided here should help professionals to understand better the challenges patients and carers face around the time of diagnosis as well as their immediate and evolving needs. The results also suggest that future research should focus on the development and evaluation of ways to meet those needs. Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001331.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected care home residents internationally, with 19–72% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in care homes. COVID-19 presents atypically in care home residents and up to 56% of residents may test positive whilst pre-symptomatic. In this article, we provide a commentary on challenges and dilemmas identified in the response to COVID-19 for care homes and their residents. We highlight the low sensitivity of polymerase chain reaction testing and the difficulties this poses for blanket screening and isolation of residents. We discuss quarantine of residents and the potential harms associated with this. Personal protective equipment supply for care homes during the pandemic has been suboptimal and we suggest that better integration of procurement and supply is required. Advance care planning has been challenged by the pandemic and there is a need to for healthcare staff to provide support to care homes with this. Finally, we discuss measures to implement augmented care in care homes, including treatment with oxygen and subcutaneous fluids, and the frameworks which will be required if these are to be sustainable. All of these challenges must be met by healthcare, social care and government agencies if care home residents and staff are to be physically and psychologically supported during this time of crisis for care homes.

End of life care is often inadequate for people with dementia. Advanced care planning (ACP) has the potential to improve outcomes for people with dementia. The aim of this review is to establish the strength of the evidence and provide decision makers with a clear understanding of what is known about ACP for people living with dementia. Evidence synthesis including systematic reviews and primary studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018107718. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS, Social Care Online and Cochrane Library were searched (July 2018). No year limit applied. To be included, reviews had to evaluate effectiveness of ACP for people with dementia or report on views and experiences of ACP from the perspective of people with dementia, carers, or health and care professionals. Additional searches (September 2018) were conducted to identify recent primary studies not included in the reviews. Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 and Joanna Briggs Institute instruments by two authors independently. Outcomes were categorized and tabulated to assess effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed using thematic synthesis. Nineteen reviews (163 unique studies) and 11 primary articles with a range of advance care planning definitions and of variable quality were included. Advance care planning was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased concordance between care received and prior wishes and increased completion of advance care planning documents but quality of primary research was variable. Views of ACP for people with dementia can be clustered around six themes; 1) timing and tailoring, 2) willingness to engage, 3) roles and responsibilities of healthcare professionals, 4) relationships, 5) training and 6) resources needed. Diminishing decision-making capacity over time is a key overarching feature. Advance care planning is acceptable for people with dementia and their carers and is associated with improved outcomes. Guidelines on which outcomes and which definition to use are necessary, as is research to test different approaches to ACP. Education on topics related to diminishing decision-making capacity is key to optimize advance care planning for people with dementia and their carers.