Introduction: The Promoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED) is delivering an exercise programme for people with dementia. The Lincolnshire partnership National Health Service (NHS) foundation Trust successfully delivered PrAISED through a video-calling platform during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: This qualitative case-study aimed to identify participants that video delivery worked for, to highlight its benefits and its challenges. Interviews were conducted between May and August 2020 with five participants with dementia and their caregivers (n = 10), as well as five therapists from the Lincolnshire partnership NHS foundation Trust. The interviews were analysed through thematic analysis. Results: Video delivery worked best when participants had a supporting caregiver and when therapists showed enthusiasm and had an established rapport with the client. Benefits included time efficiency of sessions, enhancing participants’ motivation, caregivers’ dementia awareness, and therapists’ creativity. Limitations included users’ poor IT skills and resources. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic required innovative ways of delivering rehabilitation. This study supports that people with dementia can use tele-rehabilitation, but success is reliant on having a caregiver and an enthusiastic and known therapist.

Background Dementia is associated with frailty leading to increased risks of falls and hospitalisations. Interventions are required to maintain functional ability, strength and balance. Design Multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial, with embedded process evaluation. Procedures were adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants People with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), living at home, and a family member or carer. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of an exercise and functional activity therapy intervention compared to usual care. Intervention A specially-designed dementia-specific rehabilitation programme focussing on strength, balance, physical activity and performance of ADL, which was tailored, progressive, addressed risk and the psychological and learning needs of people with dementia, providing up to 50 therapy sessions over 12 months. The control group received usual care plus a falls risk assessment. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was the informant-reported Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: self-reported ADL, cognition, physical activity, quality of life, frailty, balance, functional mobility, fear of falling, mood, carer strain and service use (at 12 months) and falls (between months 4 and 15). Results 365 people were randomised, 183 to intervention and 182 to control. Median age of participants was 80 years (range 65-95), median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score 20/30 (range 13-26), 58% were men. Participants received a median of 31 (IQR = 22-40) therapy sessions out of a possible maximum of 50. Participants reported completing a mean 121 minutes/week of PrAISED activity outside of supervised sessions. Primary outcome data were available for 149 (intervention) and 141 (control) participants. There was no difference in DAD scores between groups: adjusted mean difference -1.3/100, 95% Confidence Interval (-5.2 to +2.6); Cohen’s d effect size -0.06 (-0.26 to +0.15); p=0.5. Upper 95% confidence intervals excluded small to moderate effects on any of the range of secondary outcome measures. Between months 4 and 15 there were 79 falls in the intervention group and 200 falls in the control group, adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.78 (0.5 to 1.3); p= 0.3. Conclusion The intensive PrAISED programme of exercise and functional activity training did not improve ADLs, physical activity, quality of life, reduce falls or improve any other secondary health status outcomes even though uptake was good. Future research should consider alternative approaches to risk reduction and ability maintenance. Trial registration ISRCTN15320670. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research What is already known Dementia is associated with progressive loss of functional ability, including activities of daily living and mobility, and a high risk of falls Exercise programmes and rehabilitation therapies may improve ability, or slow the rate of decline, but evidence from trials and systematic reviews is equivocal What this study tells us We developed an intensive dementia-specific exercise and functional activity rehabilitation programme, lasting 12 months, taking account of motivation, learning needs and context, in particular the need to engage carers, and evaluated it in a randomised controlled trial The programme was very well received by participants and therapists, but had no effect on activities of daily living, physical activity, quality of life, falls, cognition or any other health status outcome We are unlikely to be able to change rate of loss of ability in dementia through exercise or functionally orientated rehabilitation therapy. We need different ways of defining wellbeing after a dementia diagnosis.

Background: Dementia represents a major public health challenge worldwide. Interventions are required to maintain functional ability and prevent crises. Exercise-based therapy may improve activities of daily living and prevent falls. Objective: We aimed to systematically develop an intervention, called Promoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (PrAISED), and evaluate its clinical and cost-effectiveness. Design: A mixed-methods study. Literature review, co-design, patient and public involvement and practical experience were used to develop and refine a therapy intervention. We applied principles of behaviour change to promote engagement and motivation. Three-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial to test research procedures, the practicality of intervention, and establish the need for prolonged supervision. Two-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, comparing intervention with control, with 15 months’ follow-up. Process and realist evaluations, including quantitative data, interviews and thematic analyses. Health economic evaluations, including a cost-effectiveness analysis using Markov modelling and social return on investment. Implementation study. Setting: Therapy and research were undertaken in participants’ homes and local communities across 5 sites in England. Participants: People with diagnosed mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment, Montreal Cognitive Assessment score 13–25, living at home and a family member or carer. In the main trial, there were five sites in England, participants were 98% White ethnicity and 20% had mild cognitive impairment. Interventions: A specially designed, dementia-specific, rehabilitation programme focusing on strength, balance, physical activity and performance of activities of daily living, which was tailored, progressive and addressed risk, providing up to 50 therapy sessions over 12 months. The control group received usual care plus a falls risk assessment. Main outcome measures: The primary trial outcome was the informant-reported Disability Assessment for Dementia 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: self-reported activities of daily living, physical activity, quality of life, frailty, balance, functional mobility, cognition, fear of falling, mood, carer strain and service use (at 12 months) and falls (between months 4 and 15). Results: Three hundred and sixty-five people were randomised in the multicentre trial, 183 to intervention and 182 to control. Median age of participants was 80 years (range 65–95), median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 20/30 (range 13–26) and 58% were men. Participants received a median of 31 (interquartile range = 22–40) therapy sessions out of a possible maximum of 50. Participants reported completing a mean 121 minutes/week of PrAISED activity. Primary outcome data were available for 149 (intervention) and 141 (control) participants. There was no difference in Disability Assessment for Dementia scores between groups: adjusted mean difference −1.3/100, 95% confidence interval (−5.2 to 2.6); Cohen’s d effect size −0.06 (−0.26 to 0.15); p = 0.5. Upper 95% confidence intervals excluded small to moderate effects on any secondary outcome measures. Between months 4 and 15, there were 79 falls in the intervention group and 200 falls in the control group, and adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.78 (0.5 to 1.3); p = 0.3. Participants and therapists liked the intervention and thought that it produced health benefits. Tailoring, perceiving benefits, professional supervision and family or carer support were important facilitators. Cognitive and physical impairment, risk aversion and tapering the level of support were barriers. Therapeutic relationship between participant and therapist was important. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £130,000 over a lifetime horizon. Social return on investment was positive before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic but was negative after the first pandemic lockdown, largely due to unavailability of access to community facilities. Limitations: The multicentre randomised controlled trial was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The first lockdown occurred when 301 participants had been randomised and 64 participants had completed the trial. Recruitment was suspended, and some therapy and data collection were undertaken remotely. The intervention was diminished compared with in-person delivery, but reported fidelity remained reasonable. Our participant population lacked socioeconomic and ethnic diversity – over 30% lived in the least deprived decile of postcodes. The intervention was very popular with participants and therapists, and it is possible that our predominantly biomedical and functionally orientated outcome variables failed to capture intervention benefits. Conclusions: The intensive PrAISED programme of exercise and functional activity training did not improve activities of daily living, physical activity, quality of life, reduce falls or improve any other secondary health status outcomes. Due to the pandemic, the population recruited, and the outcomes chosen, some uncertainty remains about the effectiveness of the intervention. Future work: Consider: (1) repeating the trial outside of a pandemic; (2) more psychosocial outcomes, such as social participation, affirming personhood and valuing therapeutic relationships; (3) alternative approaches to risk reduction and ability maintenance in dementia; (4) other models of support to manage problems associated with inevitable progression and decline; (5) that conventional randomised controlled trials may not be the best way to evaluate complex intervention for complex and degenerative conditions; interpretative and realist methods should supplement evaluation; and (6) work to include a wider range of ethnicities and socioeconomic circumstances. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN10550694, 15320670. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-0614-20007) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 14, No. 1. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.