Longitudinal predictors of informant-rated involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1696744/v1

PDF

Research Article

Longitudinal predictors of informant-rated involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1696744/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted 26 May, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Aims We 1) described levels of informant-rated involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making; 2) explored whether functional, behavioral, and psychological factors related to the person with dementia and the caregiver explain variability in involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making at baseline; 3) estimated change in involvement in everyday decision-making over two years.

Methods We used IDEAL cohort baseline, 12- and 24-months follow-up data for 1182 people with dementia and their caregivers. Measures were informant-rated everyday decision-making, informant-rated functional ability, informant-rated neuropsychiatric symptoms, cognitive capacity of the person with dementia, self-rated caregiver stress, and self-ratings of relationship quality by both person with dementia and caregiver. Linear regressions and latent growth curve models were used.

Results Baseline mean score on the decision-making involvement scale was 31/45; it minimally declined over time. People with dementia who were female, single, and/or whose caregiver was younger had greater involvement in everyday decision-making than those without these characteristics. Better cognitive capacity, fewer functional difficulties, fewer neuropsychiatric symptoms, less caregiver stress, and better informant-rated relationship quality were associated with higher involvement in everyday decision-making. Self-rating of relationship quality by people with dementia was not associated with everyday decision-making.

Conclusions As cognitive and functional limitations and neuropsychiatric symptoms increase, people with dementia are gradually less involved in everyday decisions. Cognitive and functional rehabilitation, together with educational resources, tailored towards dementia stage, that inform caregivers about strategies that facilitate involvement of the person with dementia in everyday decision-making, could prolong involvement in everyday decision-making.

Psychology

A recent review (Davis R, Ziomkowski MK, Veltkamp A. Everyday decision-making in individuals with early-stage Alzheimer's disease: An integrative review of the literature. Research in Gerontological Nursing. 2017;10(5):240-7) highlighted that evidence on involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making is scarce. Moreover, the few quantitative studies linking greater functional impairment in people with dementia with less involvement in everyday decision-making are based on cross-sectional data (for example Menne HL, Whitlatch CJ. Decision-Making Involvement of Individuals With Dementia. Gerontologist. 2007;47(6):810-9). To the best of our knowledge the current study is the first to explore how involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making changes over time and whether this is associated with a range of personal characteristics of the person with dementia and caregivers, such as cognitive capacity, functional ability, neuropsychiatric symptoms, relationship quality, and caregiver stress. Our longitudinal findings provide evidence for the association between greater functional impairment in people with dementia and less involvement in everyday decision-making over time.

According to their caregivers, people with mild-to-moderate dementia are involved in everyday decision-making but their involvement declines over time.
People with dementia who are female, single, and/or whose caregiver is younger are more involved in everyday decision-making compared to those who do not share these characteristics.
Better cognitive and functional abilities and fewer neuropsychiatric symptoms in people with dementia, less caregiver stress, and better informant-rated relationship quality are associated with higher involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making.

Supporting people with dementia to remain involved in everyday decision-making as cognitive and functional difficulties and neuropsychiatric symptoms increase, particularly those who are men and cared for by their spouse, may help to promote feelings of independence, sense of being in control, and self-efficacy.

Globally 55 million people are currently living with dementia¹. Dementia involves a progressive decline in cognitive and functional abilities^2,3, leading to assumptions that people with dementia are unable to make certain decisions⁴. Decisions range in complexity and importance, from decisions about current and/or future care to everyday decisions such as what to eat, what to wear, and when to go to bed^5–7. In fact, people with early-stage dementia are generally able to make most decisions^8,9 and people in the later stages of dementia, who are still able to communicate preferences, may be able to make simpler everyday decisions. Many people with mild-to-moderate dementia want greater involvement in decision-making^8,10−12. However, one qualitative study involving interviews with 12 people with dementia and their caregivers on four occasions over one year suggests that as dementia severity increases people with dementia become gradually less involved in everyday decision-making¹³.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities¹⁴ sets out the rights of people with disabilities, including dementia, to make their own decisions wherever possible. Many countries have introduced legislation to support and safeguard these rights; examples include the Mental Capacity Act in England and Wales¹⁵, the Adults with Incapacity Act in Scotland¹⁶, and the Health Care Consent Act in Canada¹⁷. Being involved in decision-making is important for people with dementia as it enables and preserves a sense of autonomy and control over life^11,18,19, and contributes to a good quality of life^5,20,21. This need for greater involvement remains central to decisions that affect them, such as planning ahead for when they are unable to make decisions about care¹¹, and decisions around current treatment and care¹². Most research on decision-making has focused on how involved people with dementia are in major life decisions such as driving cessation²², medical treatment, moving to nursing or care facilities²³, and end-of-life care²⁴. Less is known about the degree of involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making and how this changes over time.

Involvement in everyday decision-making of people with dementia may be related to a range of personal characteristics of the person with dementia and caregiver. Indeed, a study reported that people with dementia were more involved in everyday decision-making if they

were younger, female, had more education, had fewer functional limitations, and had a non-spousal caregiver¹⁸. This study was cross-sectional and there is therefore now a need for longitudinal evidence exploring whether involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making decreases as cognitive, physical, and functional difficulties increase⁸.

This study aims to 1) describe levels of informant-rated (i.e. rated by the caregiver) involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making at baseline and 12 and 24 months later; 2) explore whether person with dementia (i.e. age, sex, dementia subtype, education, marital status, and living situation) and caregiver (i.e. age, sex, and caregiver status) factors are related to how involved people with dementia are in everyday decision-making at baseline; and 3) estimate change in everyday decision-making over time.

This study used data collected at baseline (T1: 2014-16); 12-month follow-up (T2: 2015-17); and 24-month follow-up (T3: 2016-18) of the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) programme²⁵. Study analyses used version 6 of the datasets. IDEAL participants were recruited through a network of 29 National Health Service (NHS) sites in England, Scotland, and Wales. Participants of any age could take part in IDEAL if they lived in the community, had a diagnosis of any type of dementia, and had mild-to-moderate cognitive decline (Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥ 15²⁶) at enrolment. Potential participants were excluded if, at baseline, they had a co-morbid terminal illness, were unable to provide informed consent, and/or there was known potential for home visits to pose risk to research staff. When a person with dementia joined the study an informal caregiver was also invited to participate, where available. There were no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria for caregivers other than being willing and available to take part. Further information about the IDEAL programme is reported in the study protocol²⁵. The IDEAL study was approved by the Wales 5 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 13/WA/0405) and the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology, Bangor University (reference: 2014–11684). The IDEAL study is registered with the UK Clinical Research Network (registration number: 16593).

Measures

Informant-rated measures

Everyday decision-making was assessed at all three time-points with the 15-item Decision-Making Involvement Scale⁵; see Supplementary Table 1 for details. Higher total scores (possible range: 0–45) indicate greater involvement.

Functional ability was assessed at all three timepoints with an amended informant-rated 11-item version of the Functional Activities Questionnaire^27–29 including an additional question concerning appropriate telephone use²⁸. Higher scores (possible range: 0–33) indicate greater functional limitations.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms were assessed at all three timepoints with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire^30,31. The questionnaire covers 12 neuropsychiatric symptoms comprising sleep, apathy, delusion, depression, anxiety, euphoria, agitation, eating/appetite, hallucination, disinhibition, irritability, and aberrant motor behaviour. The total score (possible range: 0–12) indicates the number of neuropsychiatric symptoms the person with dementia has.

Measures self-rated by the caregiver

Stress was assessed with the 15-item Relative Stress Scale³² at all three timepoints. Higher scores (possible range: 0–60) indicates greater stress.

Personal characteristics of the caregiver comprised age, age groups (< 65; 65–69; 70–74; 75–79; 80+), sex, and caregiver status (spouse/partner; family/friend).

Measures self-rated by the person with dementia

Cognitive capacity was assessed at all timepoints with the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III³³. Higher total scores (possible range: 0-100) indicate better cognitive capacity.

Personal characteristics of the person with dementia comprised age, age groups (< 65; 65–69; 70–74; 75–79; 80+), sex, education, marital status, living situation, and diagnosis subtype. Education comprised four groups: no qualifications; school leaving certificate at age 16; school leaving certificate at age 18; and university. Marital status comprised four categories: single; married/remarried/in a civil partnership; divorced/separated; widowed and not remarried. Living situation comprised four groups: living alone; living with spouse/partner; living with others; and living in care. This last group was applicable only at 12-months and 24-months as some people with dementia moved into residential care during the course of the study, and their carers remained in the study. Diagnosis subtype comprised seven groups: Alzheimer’s disease; vascular dementia; mixed-Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia; frontotemporal dementia; Parkinson’s disease dementia; dementia with Lewy bodies; and unspecified/other.

Measures rated by both the informant and the person with dementia

Quality of the relationship between the person with dementia and the caregiver was assessed at all three timepoints with a modified version of the Positive Affect Index comprising five questions addressing communication quality, closeness, similarity of views on life, engagement in joint activities, and overall relationship quality³⁴. Higher scores (possible range: 5–30) indicate better relationship quality.

Statistical methodology

Descriptive statistics for study variables at baseline and follow-ups were reported.

Univariable regression models were conducted to explore, at baseline, whether characteristics of the person with dementia (age, sex, dementia subtype, education, marital status, living situation) and of the caregiver (age, sex, and caregiver status) explained a significant amount of variance in scores on the decision-making involvement scale. A multiple regression model comprising all these predictors was also conducted.

Unadjusted and adjusted (age of the person with dementia, sex of the person with dementia, and diagnosis subtype) latent growth curve models explored within- and between-individual differences in baseline levels of informant-rated everyday decision-making, as well as the trajectory of change in informant-rated everyday decision-making over the three timepoints.

Latent growth curve models investigated whether cognitive capacity, informant-rated functional ability, informant-rated neuropsychiatric symptoms, self-rated relationship quality between the person with dementia and the caregiver, caregiver stress, and informant-rated relationship quality were time-varying predictors of scores on the decision-making involvement scale over time. Each model estimated the concurrent associations between the selected predictor at baseline and everyday decision-making at baseline, the selected predictor at 12-month follow-up and everyday decision-making at 12-month follow-up, and the selected predictor at 24-month follow-up and everyday decision-making at 24-month follow-up. Unadjusted and adjusted (age of the person with dementia, sex of the person with dementia, and diagnosis subtype) models were fitted. All latent growth curve models had good model fit indices (Comparative Fit Index/Tucker-Lewis Index > 0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation < 0.05).

Univariate regression models were conducted using Stata whereas latent growth curve models were conducted using Mplus^35,36. For predictors, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations, generating 25 imputed datasets. Missing data on the outcome measure was handled using maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors.

Descriptive statistics

Of the 1545 people with dementia that took part in IDEAL, 268 were excluded from the analysis in this study as they did not have a caregiver taking part. A further 29 participants were excluded as their caregiver changed over the study period which precluded comparison of change in scores over time. An additional 66 participants were excluded as they had missing data for everyday decision-making at all three timepoints. The analyses therefore comprised 1182 people with dementia at baseline, 948 at 12-month follow-up, and 707 at 24-month follow-up.

Descriptive statistics for study variables at all timepoints are reported in Table 1. Mean age of people with dementia was 76.10 years (SD = 8.17) at baseline. Slightly above half were men (59.1%), most were married or co-habiting with a partner, and just over half had a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. According to their caregivers, people with dementia generally had moderate levels of functional impairment and three to four neuropsychiatric symptoms. People with dementia rated the quality of their relationship with the caregiver positively. Characteristics of people with dementia at follow-ups were similar to baseline but functional impairment increased slightly over time.

At baseline, caregivers’ mean age was 69.05 years (SD = 10.90). Over two-thirds of caregivers were women. The majority (82%) were spouses or co-habiting partners of the person with dementia. Caregivers self-reported relatively low levels of stress and rated the quality of their relationship with the person with dementia positively.

Table 1

Personal Characteristics at baseline, 12-month and 24-month follow-ups
	Baseline (n = 1182)	12-month follow-up (n = 948)	24-month follow-up (n = 707)
Measures self-rated by the person with dementia
Age in years, M (SD; range)	76.10 (8.17)	76.80 (8.00)	77.19 (8.02)
Age group, n (%)
Aged < 65	95 (8.0)	65 (6.9)	50 (7.1)
Aged 65–69	147 (12.4)	111 (11.7)	67 (9.5)
Aged 70–74	217 (18.4)	178 (18.8)	144 (20.4)
Aged 75–79	286 (24.2)	217 (22.9)	147 (20.8)
Aged ≥ 80	437 (37.0)	377 (39.9)	299 (42.3)
Sex, n (%)
Women	484 (41.0)	385 (40.6)	290 (41.0)
Men	698 (59.1)	563 (59.4)	417 (59.0)
Education, n (%)
No qualification	315 (26.7)	244 (25.7)	183 (25.9)
Leaving certificate at age 16	211 (17.9)	168 (17.7)	119 (16.8)
Leaving certificate at age 18	408 (34.5)	337 (35.6)	252 (35.6)
University	243 (20.6)	197 (20.8)	152 (21.5)
Missing	5 (0.4)	2 (0.2)	1 (0.1)
Marital status, n (%)
Single	12 (1.0)	7 (0.7)	6 (0.8)
Married/partner/cohabiting	977 (82.7)	781 (82.4)	576 (81.5)
Divorced/separated	47 (4.0)	32 (3.4)	21 (3.0)
Widowed	146 (12.4)	106 (11.2)	66 (9.3)
Missing, n (%)	0 (0)	22 (2.3)	38 (5.4)
Living situation, n (%)
Living alone	132 (11.2)	84 (9.1)	46 (7.1)
Living with spouse/partner	987 (83.4)	779 (84.1)	556 (85.4)
Living with other	61 (5.2)	42 (4.5)	29 (4.5)
Living in care	0 (0)	20 (2.2)	20 (3.1)
Missing, n (%)	2 (0.2)	23 (2.4)	56 (7.9)
Diagnosis subtype, n (%)
Alzheimer’s disease	659 (55.8)	529 (55.8)	407 (57.6)
Vascular dementia	122 (10.3)	89 (9.4)	67 (9.5)
Mixed (Alzheimer’s and vascular)	249 (21.1)	208 (21.9)	149 (21.1)
Frontotemporal dementia	45 (3.8)	37 (3.9)	30 (4.2)
Parkinson’s disease dementia	39 (3.3)	32 (3.4)	17 (2.4)
Dementia with Lewy bodies	38 (3.2)	32 (3.4)	21 (3.0)
Unspecified/other dementia	30 (2.5)	21 (2.2)	16 (2.3)
Cognitive capacity, M (SD)	69.03 (13.40)	65.54 (16.19)	63.55 (18.43)
Missing, n (%)	69 (5.8)	96 (10.1)	111 (15.7)
Relationship quality; M (SD)	25.12 (3.55)	25.06 (3.65)	25.15 (3.66)
Missing, n (%)	148 (12.5)	83 (8.8)	120 (17.0)
Measures informant-rated by the caregiver
Functional ability, M (SD)	17.82 (8.60)	20.92 (8.63)	22.91 (8.76)
Missing, n (%)	70 (5.9)	39 (4.1)	21 (3.0)
Number of neuropsychiatric symptoms, M (SD)	3.57 (2.45)	3.74 (2.52)	4.16 (2.53)
Missing, n (%)	47 (4.0)	35 (3.7)	30 (4.2)
Everyday decision-making, M (SD)	31.10 (10.0)	29.22 (11.21)	26.96 (12.32)
Missing, n (%)	64 (5.4)	54 (4.3)	35 (5.0)
Measures self-rated by the caregiver
Age in years, M (SD; range)	69.05 (10.90)	70.30 (10.51)	71.07 (10.33)
Age group, n (%)
Aged < 65	338 (28.6)	242 (25.5)	152 (21.5)
Aged 65–69	200 (16.9)	145 (15.3)	116 (16.4)
Aged 70–74	244 (20.6)	207 (21.8)	162 (22.9)
Aged 75–79	212 (17.9)	176 (18.6)	129 (18.3)
Aged ≥ 80	188 (15.9)	178 (18.8)	148 (20.9)
Sex, n (%)
Women	822 (69.5)	291 (30.7)	485 (68.6)
Men	360 (30.5)	657 (69.3)	222 (31.4)
Caregiver status, n (%)
Spouse/partner	969 (82.0)	799 (84.3)	601 (85.0)
Family/friend	213 (18.0)	149 (15.7)	106 (15.0)
Stress, M (SD; range)	19.09 (9.85)	21.74 (10.08)	23.05 (10.19)
Missing, n (%)	52 (4.4)	65 (6.9)	45 (6.4)
Relationship quality, M (SD; range)	23.16 (4.71)	22.23 (4.87)	21.84 (4.80)
Missing, n (%)	18 (1.5)	53 (5.6)	37 (5.2)
M = Mean. SD = Standard deviation. n = number.

Mean decision-making involvement scale score was 31.10; hence caregivers generally reported that people with dementia were “fairly involved” or “very involved” in the everyday decisions that are included in the decision-making involvement scale. Number and proportions of caregivers’ responses for the decision-making involvement scale items at all timepoints are reported in Supplementary Table 1. At baseline, caregivers reported that the person with dementia was most involved in making daily and personal decisions about when to go to bed (88.3% were very or fairly involved); when to get up (84.9% were very or fairly involved); medical care (79.9% were very or fairly involved), what to do in spare time (79.7% were very or fairly involved); and expressing affection (76.0% were very or fairly involved). However, fewer people with dementia were involved in decisions about places to go (66.8% were very or fairly involved); spending money (67.8% were very or fairly involved); and visiting friends (67.3% were very or fairly involved). Caregivers reported that a high proportion of people with dementia were involved in important decisions such as where to live (82.2% were very or fairly involved). According to caregivers, a lower proportion of people with dementia was involved in those decisions that may be relevant only for a subgroup of the older population such as doing physical activity (70.8% were very or fairly involved); having a pet (68.3% were very or fairly involved); and decisions around religion and spiritual activities (43.6% were very or fairly involved). Compared to other types of everyday decisions, involvement in decisions about what clothes to wear (68.6% were very or fairly involved); meals (66.0% were very or fairly involved); and what food to buy (57.2 were very or fairly involved) was lower.

In the current study sample women were more involved than men in all types of decision-making (see Supplementary Table 2) but differences between women and men were more pronounced in decisions about what clothes to wear (72% of men versus 91.6% of women were very or fairly involved), meals (56.2% of men versus 79.9% of women were very or fairly involved), and what food to buy (46.5% of men versus 72.6% of women were very or fairly involved).

Associations between characteristics of the person with dementia and of the caregivers with involvement of people with dementia in decision-making

Table 2 reports regression models addressing associations between baseline person with dementia and caregiver characteristics and decision-making involvement scores. In the univariable model, younger age, being female, being unmarried, not living with a spouse/partner and having a non-spousal caregiver were associated with greater involvement in everyday decision-making, as was having a male caregiver and a younger caregiver. When these characteristics were modelled together, associations remained for sex, marital status and educational level of the person with dementia, dementia subtype, and age of the caregiver. People with dementia who were female and/or single had greater involvement in everyday decision-making. Those with frontotemporal dementia were less involved in everyday decision-making compared to those with Alzheimer’s disease. Those with a university degree were more involved in everyday decision-making than those with no education. Those caregivers who were younger in age reported greater involvement of the person with dementia in everyday decision-making.

Table 2

Regression models with everyday decision-making as outcome and characteristics of the person with dementia and of the caregiver as predictors at baseline
	Univariable regressions		Multivariable regression
Predictors at baseline	Beta (95% CI)	p-value	Beta (95% CI)	p-value
Age of the person with dementia	− .11 (-.19; − .04)	.002	− .08 (-.20; .03)	.161
Sex of the person with dementia (Reference: male)	4.16 (2.99; 5.34)	< .001	3.16 (.86; 5.45)	.007
Dementia subtype (Reference: Alzheimer’s disease)
Vascular dementia	1.03 (-1.00; 3.05)	.320	.93 (-1.01; 2.88)	.347
Mixed (Alzheimer’s and vascular)	− .12 (-1.62; 1.39)	.878	.08 (-1.38; 1.53)	.919
Frontotemporal dementia	-2.31 (-5.35; .73)	.136	-3.05 (-6.02; − .08)	.044
Parkinson’s disease dementia	.40 (-2.94; 3.73)	.815	.98 (-2.20; 4.17)	.545
Dementia with Lewy bodies	-2.31 (-5.68; 1.07)	.180	-1.21 (-4.45; 2.03)	.464
Unspecified/other dementia	− .89 (-4.83; 3.05)	.658	-1.17 (-4.98; 2.63)	.545
Education (Reference: no education)
School leaving certificate age 16	.06 (-1.74; 1.85)	.951	.516 (-1.23; 2.26)	.561
School leaving certificate age 18	-1.0 (-2.51; .51)	.194	.13 (-1.36; 1.63)	.862
University	.75 (-.98; 2.48)	.397	1.80 (.10; 3.50)	.038
Marital status (Reference: Married/Partner/Co-habiting)
Single	7.80 (2.19; 13.01)	.006	7.40 (.00; 15.79)	.041
Divorced/separated	7.37 (4.45; 10.28)	< .001	4.08 (-.97; 9.08)	.113
Widowed	4.27 (2.50; 6.05)	< .001	2.07 (-.3.07; 7.21)	.430
Living situation (Reference: Spouse/Partner)
Living alone	6.26 (4.42; 8.11)	< .001	1.59 (-4.47; 7.66)	.606
Live with other	2.83 (.20; 5.47)	.035	-2.09 (-8.30; 4.12)	.509
Age of the caregiver	− .19 (-.24; − .13)	< .001	− .15 (-.26; − .03)	.010
Sex of the caregiver (Reference: male)	-2.39 (-3.67; -1.12)	< .001	− .85 (-3.11; 1.41)	.461
Caregiver status (Reference: spouse)
Family/Friend	4.84 (3.33; 6.35)	< .001	-1.32 (-6.18; 3.54)	.594

Time-varying predictors of involvement in everyday decision-making

At baseline, for the overall cohort the mean decision-making involvement score was 31.22, and there was a decline of 2.71 points per year. Unadjusted and adjusted latent growth curve models explored change in everyday decision-making over time; see Table 3. In the adjusted model better cognitive capacity, fewer functional difficulties, fewer neuropsychiatric symptoms, less caregiver stress, and better informant-rated relationship quality were associated with higher involvement in everyday decision-making. These associations increased in strength over time. In the adjusted model, self-rated quality of the relationship between the person with dementia and the caregiver was not associated with involvement in everyday decision-making at any timepoint.

Table 3

Latent growth curve models estimating change in everyday decision-making and time-varying predictors of decision-making
	Decision-making involvement scale over time
	Unadjusted model			Adjusted model
Time varying predictors	T1	T2	T3	T1	T2	T3
	(estimate 95% CI)
Functional ability at T1	− .21 (-.25; − .08)			− .51 (-.55; − .46)
Functional ability at T2		− .38 (-.47; − .30)			− .64 (-.68; − .60)
Functional ability at T3			− .57 (-.71; − .42)			− .80 (-.86; − .75)
Cognitive capacity at T1	− .04 (-.11; .04)			.11 (.08; .14)
Cognitive capacity at T2		.03 (-.01; .08)			.16 (.14; .19)
Cognitive capacity at T3			.10 (.02; .18)			.21 (.17; .24)
Neuropsychiatric symptoms at T1	− .04 (-.44; .37)			− .76 (-.91; − .60)
Neuropsychiatric symptoms at T2		− .40 (-.63; − .17)			− .85 (-1.00; − .70)
Neuropsychiatric symptoms at T3			− .86 (-1.28; − .43)			-1.12 (-1.32; − .92)
Relationship quality rated by people with dementia at T1	− .07 (-.33; .19)			.05 (-.05; .16)
Relationship quality rated by people with dementia at T2		− .04 (-.17; .10)			.07 (-.02; .16)
Relationship quality rated by people with dementia at T3			− .04 (-.31; .23)			.05 (-.11; .21)
Caregiver stress at T1	− .04 (-.16; .09)			− .29 (-.33; − .25)
Caregiver stress at T2		− .13 (-.20; − .06)			− .30 (-.34; − .26)
Caregiver stress at T3			− .24 (-.37; − .11)			− .36 (-.42; − .31)
Relationship quality rated by the caregiver at T1	.16 (-.06; .39)			.42 (.34; .50)
Relationship quality rated by the caregiver at T2		.17 (.05; .29)			.54 (.47; .62)
Relationship quality rated by the caregiver at T3			.12 (-.14; .37)			.62 (.51; .73)
Adjusted for age of the person with dementia, sex of the person with dementia, and diagnosis subtype.

This study explored for the first time whether and how involvement in everyday decision-making, as perceived by caregivers, changed in people with dementia over two years. The study also investigated how this change was associated with a range of personal characteristics of the person with dementia and caregiver, as well as cognitive capacity, functional ability, neuropsychiatric symptoms, relationship quality, and caregiver stress. Findings suggest that people with dementia were generally involved in everyday decision-making and this involvement only minimally decreased over time. According to their caregivers, those people with dementia who were female, single, with a university degree, and whose caregiver was younger were more involved in everyday decision-making compared to those without these characteristics. Those with frontotemporal dementia were less involved in everyday decision-making compared to those with Alzheimer’s disease. Better cognitive capacity, fewer functional difficulties, fewer neuropsychiatric symptoms, less caregiver stress, and better informant-rated relationship quality were consistently associated with higher involvement in everyday decision-making at baseline and follow-ups.

There was some variability in how involved people with dementia were in specific decisions. People with dementia were involved in infrequent but important decisions such as were to live. They were also very involved in certain daily and personal decisions such as when to go, when to get up, medical care, what to do in spare time, and expressing affections. Deciding where to live, when to go to bed and to get up have all been found to contribute to maintenance of routine, selfhood, and good quality of life in people with dementia^{5,8,11,18−21}. However, people with dementia were less involved in decisions about other everyday personal activities such as visiting friends, where to go, and spending money. Although it may be reasonable for carers to take over decisions about how to spend money to prevent mismanagement of financial resources³⁷, people with dementia might be expected to maintain involvement in decisions regarding visiting friends and where to go. These activities may be fundamental for people with dementia to maintain friendships, interests, and hobbies, and general engagement with life.

The proportion of people with dementia involved in everyday decisions was lower for decisions about doing physical activity, having a pet, and engaging in religious and spiritual activities. Although being involved in these decisions may be very important for certain individuals and for their quality of life^38,39, other older people may lack interest in these areas, explaining why a smaller proportion of people with dementia was involved in these decisions.

In line with existing evidence, being female was associated with greater involvement in everyday decision-making¹⁸. The current sample included a majority of men with dementia who had a spousal caregiver. It may be that, as evidence suggests that men are generally less involved than women in everyday decisions regardless of having a diagnosis of dementia, their spouses or co-habiting partners think they know their preferences without having to directly ask about everyday decisions^13,40. In support of this reasoning, we found that involvement in decisions regarding what to wear, what food to buy, and what to eat at meals was markedly higher among women with dementia compared to men. People with dementia with older caregivers were also rated as having lower involvement in everyday decision-making, though this may be due to older caregivers primarily comprising spouses and spouses being more likely to take decisions for the person with dementia, whereas single people are more involved in everyday decision-making.

How involved people with dementia were in everyday decision-making slightly decreased over time; this result confirms longitudinal qualitative evidence showing that as dementia severity increases people with dementia become gradually less involved in everyday decision-making¹³, though mean cognitive capacity scores showed only a gradual decline over the two years. More impaired cognition, increased functional difficulties, and more neuropsychiatric symptoms were related to having less involvement in everyday decision-making at all timepoints. It may be that caregivers gradually take more decisions on behalf of the person with dementia with the intent to decrease risk for the person with dementia^37,41,42.

Therefore, strategies designed to support functional ability in everyday activities in people with dementia, such as cognitive rehabilitation programs^43–45, may maintain the involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making. Simplifying questions, using personalised visual aids or objects, and giving more time to formulate answers can also help to involve the person with dementia in everyday decision-making as dementia severity increases^8,46,47.

Higher levels of caregiver stress and lower relationship quality were also associated with less involvement in decision-making at all timepoints in the adjusted models. This links with previous evidence indicating that caregiver factors influence how caregivers appraise the abilities and functioning of the person with dementia^28,29,48. This suggests that making decisions on behalf of the person with dementia may increase caregiver stress, especially when caregivers are adult children or friends who may be less familiar with the daily preferences of the person with dementia compared to a spouse or co-habiting partner¹³. Post-diagnostic support and educational resources may equip caregivers with knowledge about how to continue involving the person with dementia in everyday decision-making despite dementia severity increasing. However, it may also be that those caregivers who are more stressed feel they have no time to involve the person with dementia in everyday decisions and that it is more practical to do everything themselves.

Strengths and limitations

This study has some limitations that need to be acknowledged. The Decision-Making Involvement Scale was designed to be informant-rated only; therefore there are no corresponding ratings made by the person with dementia, and we did not have related information from the perspective of the person with dementia, or observational data concerning involvement in decision-making. Findings may therefore be biased by level of caregiver stress, especially when the person with dementia has more impaired cognitive capacity, increased functional difficulties, and more neuropsychiatric symptoms^29,49,50. It may be that those participants who dropped out over the two years of the study were in poorer health and less likely to be involved in everyday decision-making.

Two years was sufficient to detect a small change in everyday decision-making and cognitive and functional difficulties, but a longer follow-up could have elicited information concerning involvement in decisions around moving into care for more people with dementia as well as further understanding of decision-making as dementia severity increases. Nonetheless, this is one of the few studies exploring everyday decision-making in people with dementia over time and associations with a wide range of variables related to both the person with dementia and his/her caregiver.

Overall, caregivers reported that people with dementia were somewhat involved in various aspects of everyday decision-making and their involvement declined only minimally over time. However, people with dementia with more functional and cognitive limitations, and/or whose caregivers are more stressed, may be at risk of being less involved in everyday decisions. Supporting people with dementia to remain involved in everyday decision-making as cognitive and functional difficulties increase may help maintain a good quality of life and sense of independence.

Data availability

IDEAL data were deposited with the UK data archive in April 2020 and will be available to access from April 2023. Details of how the data can be accessed after that date can be found here: http://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/854293/.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

‘Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life: living well with dementia. The IDEAL study’ was funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) through grant ES/L001853/2. Investigators: L. Clare, I.R. Jones, C. Victor, J.V. Hindle, R.W. Jones, M. Knapp, M. Kopelman, R. Litherland, A. Martyr, F.E. Matthews, R.G. Morris, S.M. Nelis, J.A. Pickett, C. Quinn, J. Rusted, J. Thom. ESRC is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). ‘Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life: a longitudinal perspective on living well with dementia. The IDEAL-2 study’ is funded by Alzheimer’s Society, grant number 348, AS-PR2-16-001. Investigators: L. Clare, I.R. Jones, C. Victor, C. Ballard, A. Hillman, J.V. Hindle, J. Hughes, R.W. Jones, M. Knapp, R. Litherland, A. Martyr, F.E. Matthews, R.G. Morris, S.M. Nelis, C. Quinn, J. Rusted. L. Clare acknowledges support from the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South-West Peninsula. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ESRC, UKRI, NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care, the National Health Service, or Alzheimer’s Society. The support of ESRC, NIHR and Alzheimer’s Society is gratefully acknowledged.

Author contribution

SS formulated the research questions, conducted study analyses, and drafted the manuscript.

AM contributed to formulation of research questions and co-edited the manuscript.

LG advised on and supervised statistical analyses.

RGM, JMR, CP, CQ, RC, FEM, and LC provided comments on the draft of the manuscript and approved the final submission.

1. World Health Organization. Accessed 11-08-2021, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dementia

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

3. Martyr A, Clare L. Executive function and activities of daily living in Alzheimer’s disease: A correlational meta-analysis. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. 2012;33(2-3):189-203. doi:10.1159/000338233

4. Miller LM, Whitlatch CJ, Lyons KS. Shared decision-making in dementia: A review of patient and family carer involvement. Dementia. 2014;15(5):1141-1157. doi:10.1177/1471301214555542

5. Menne HL, Tucke SS, Whitlatch CJ, Feinberg LF. Decision-making involvement scale for individuals with dementia and family caregivers. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias®. 2008;23(1):23-29. doi:10.1177/153317507308312

6. Delazer M, Sinz H, Zamarian L, Benke T. Decision-making with explicit and stable rules in mild Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia. 2007;45(8):1632-1641. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.01.006

7. Sinz H, Zamarian L, Benke T, Wenning GK, Delazer M. Impact of ambiguity and risk on decision making in mild Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychologia. 2008;46(7):2043-2055. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2008.02.002

8. Davis R, Ziomkowski MK, Veltkamp A. Everyday decision making in individuals with early-stage Alzheimer's disease: An integrative review of the literature. Research in Gerontological Nursing. 2017;10(5):240-247. doi:10.3928/19404921-20170831-05

9. Feinberg LF, Whitlatch CJ. Are persons with cognitive impairment able to state consistent choices? Gerontologist. Jun 2001;41(3):374-382. doi:10.1093/geront/41.3.374

10. Whitlatch C, Menne HL. Don't forget about me! Decision making by people with dementia. Generations. 2009;33(1):66-73.

11. Fetherstonhaugh D, Tarzia L, Nay R. Being central to decision making means I am still here!: The essence of decision making for people with dementia. Journal of Aging Studies. 2013;27(2):143-150. doi:10.1016/j.jaing.2012.12.007

12. Hirschman KB, Joyce CM, James BD, Xie SX, Karlawish JHT. Do Alzheimer's disease patients want to participate in a treatment decision, and would their caregivers let them? Gerontologist. 2005;45(3):381-388. doi:10.1093/geront/45.3.381

13. Samsi K, Manthorpe J. Everyday decision-making in dementia: Findings from a longitudinal interview study of people with dementia and family carers. International Psychogeriatrics. 2013;25(6):949-961. doi:10.1017/S1041610213000306

14. Nations U. United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2022.

15. Ministry of Justice. Code of Practice of the Mental

Capacity Act 2005. 2007. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/protecting-the

16. The Department of Health. The Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. 2000. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/4/contents.

17. Health Care Consent Act. 18-03-2022. <https://canlii.ca/t/5563d>

18. Menne HL, Whitlatch CJ. Decision-Making Involvement of Individuals With Dementia. Gerontologist. 2007;47(6):810-819. doi:10.1093/geront/47.6.810

19. Menne HL, Kinney JM, Morhardt DJ. ‘Trying to continue to do as much as they can do’ Theoretical insights regarding continuity and meaning making in the face of dementia. Dementia. 2002;1(3):367-382. doi:10.1177/147130120200100308

20. Menne HL, Judge KS, Whitlatch CJ. Predictors of quality of life for individuals with dementia: Implications for intervention. Dementia. 2009;8(4):543-560. doi:10.1177/1471301209350288

21. Bonds K, Song M, Whitlatch CJ, Lyons KS, Kaye JA, Lee CS. Patterns of dyadic appraisal of decision-making involvement of African American persons living with dementia. Gerontologist. 2021;61(3):383-391. doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa086

22. Adler G. Driving decision-making in older adults with dementia. Dementia. 2010;9(1):45-60. doi:10.1177/1471301209350289

23. Thein NW, D'Souza G, Sheehan B. Expectations and experience of moving to a care home: Perceptions of older people with dementia. Dementia. 2011;10(1):7-18. doi:10.1177/1471301210392971

24. Caron CD, Griffith J, Arcand M. End-of-life decision making in dementia: The perspective of family caregivers. Dementia. 2005;4(1):113-136. doi:10.1177/1471301205049193

25. Clare L, Nelis SM, Quinn C, et al. Improving the experience of dementia and enhancing active life-living well with dementia: Study protocol for the IDEAL study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):164-173. doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.4934

26. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1975;12(3):189-198. doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6

27. Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah Jr CH, Chance GM, Filos S. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. Journal of Gerontology. 1982;37:323-329. doi:10.1093/geronj/37.3.323

28. Martyr A, Clare L, Nelis SM, et al. Verbal fluency and awareness of functional deficits in early-stage dementia. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. 2012;26(3):501-519. doi:10.1080/13854046.2012.665482

29. Martyr A, Nelis SM, Quinn C, et al. The relationship between perceived functional difficulties and the ability to live well with mild-to-moderate dementia: Findings from the IDEAL programme. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2019;34(8):1251-1261. doi:10.1002/gps.5128

30. Kaufer DI, Cummings JL, Ketchel P, et al. Validation of the NPI-Q, a brief clinical form of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 2000;12(2):233-239. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.12.2.233

31. Morris JC, National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center. Data from: NACC Uniform Data Set (UDS) Coding Guidebook for Initial Visit Packet. 2008. Seattle.

32. Greene JG, Smith R, Gardiner M, Timbury GC. Measuring behavioural disturbance of elderly demented patients in the community and its effects on relatives: A factor analytic study. Age and Ageing. 1982;11(2):121-126. doi:10.1093/ageing/11.2.121

33. Hsieh S, Schubert S, Hoon C, Mioshi E, Hodges JR. Validation of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination III in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders. 2013;36(3-4):242-250. doi:10.1159/000351671

34. Clare L, Nelis SM, Whitaker CJ, et al. Marital relationship quality in early-stage dementia: Perspectives from people with dementia and their spouses. Alzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders. 2012;26(2):148-158. doi:10.1097/WAD.0b013e318221ba23

35. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Eighth Edition. 1998-2017.

36. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX2016. 2017;

37. Alzheimer Europe. Legal capacity and decision making: The ethical implications of lack of legal capacity

on the lives of people with dementia. 2020.

38. Opdebeeck C, Katsaris MA, Martyr A, et al. What are the benefits of pet ownership and care among people with mild-to-moderate dementia? findings from the IDEAL programme. Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2021;40(11):1559-1567. doi:10.1177/0733464820962619

39. Nuzum H, Stickel A, Corona M, Zeller M, Melrose RJ, Wilkins SS. Potential Benefits of Physical Activity in MCI and Dementia. Behav Neurol. 2020;2020:7807856. doi:10.1155/2020/7807856

40. Steeman E, De Casterlé BD, Godderis J, Grypdonck M. Living with early‐stage dementia: A review of qualitative studies. Journal of advanced nursing. 2006;54(6):722-738.

41. Bailey C, Clarke CL, Gibb C, Haining S, Wilkinson H, Tiplady S. Risky and resilient life with dementia: Review of and reflections on the literature. Health, risk & society. 2013;15(5):390-401. doi:10.1080/13698575.2013.821460

42. Stevenson M, McDowell ME, Taylor BJ. Concepts for communication about risk in dementia care: A review of the literature. Dementia. 2018;17(3):359-390. doi:10.1177/1471301216647542

43. Yates L, Csipke E, Moniz-Cook E, et al. The development of the Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE) intervention to enhance independence in dementia. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:1615-1630. doi:10.2147/CIA.S214367

44. Clare L, Kudlicka A, Oyebode JR, et al. Individual goal‐oriented cognitive rehabilitation to improve everyday functioning for people with early‐stage dementia: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (the GREAT trial). International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2019;34(5):709-721. doi:10.1002/gps.5076

45. Clare L, Kudlicka A, Oyebode JR, et al. Goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation for early-stage Alzheimer's and related dementias: the GREAT RCT. Health Technology Assessment. 2019;23(10)doi:10.3310/hta23100

46. Fetherstonhaugh D, Tarzia L, Bauer M, Nay R, Beattie E. “The red dress or the blue?” How do staff perceive that they support decision making for people with dementia living in residential aged care facilities? Journal of Applied Gerontology. 2016;35(2):209-226. doi:10.1177/0733464814531089

47. Collins R, Hunt A, Quinn C, Martyr A, Pentecost C, Clare L. Methods and approaches for enhancing communication with people with moderate-to-severe dementia that can facilitate their inclusion in research and service evaluation: Findings from the IDEAL programme. Dementia. 2022:14713012211069449. doi:10.1177/14713012211069449

48. Quinn C, Nelis SM, Martyr A, Morris RG, Victor C, Clare L. Caregiver influences on ‘living well’for people with dementia: Findings from the IDEAL study. Aging & Mental Health. 2020;24(9):1505-1513. doi:10.1080/13607863.2019.1602590

49. Perren S, Schmid R, Wettstein A. Caregivers’ adaptation to change: The impact of increasing impairment of persons suffering from dementia on their caregivers’ subjective well-being. Aging & Mental Health. 2006;10(5):539-548. doi:10.1080/13607860600637844

50. Kim H, Chang M, Rose K, Kim S. Predictors of caregiver burden in caregivers of individuals with dementia. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2012;68(4):846-855. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05787.x

SupplementaryTables.docx

PDF

Version 1

posted 26 May, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Longitudinal predictors of informant-rated involvement of people with dementia in everyday decision-making

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Impact Statement

Key Points

Why Does This Matter?

Introduction

Methods

Measures

Informant-rated measures

Measures self-rated by the caregiver

Measures self-rated by the person with dementia

Measures rated by both the informant and the person with dementia

Statistical methodology

Results

Descriptive statistics

Time-varying predictors of involvement in everyday decision-making

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1