Recruiting persons with dementia for clinical trials can be challenging. Building on a guide initially developed to assist primary-care-based memory clinics in their efforts to support research, a key stakeholder working group meeting was held to develop a standardized research recruitment process, with input from patients, care partners, researchers, and clinicians. Discussions in this half-day facilitated meeting focused on the wishes and needs of patients and care partners, policy and procedures for researchers, information provided to patients, and considerations for memory clinics. Patients and care partners valued the opportunity to contribute to science and provided important insights on how to best facilitate recruitment. Discussions regarding proposed processes and procedures for research recruitment highlighted the need for a new, patient-driven approach. Accordingly, a key stakeholder co-designed “Memory Clinic Research Match” program was developed that has the potential to overcome existing barriers and to increase recruitment for dementia-related research.

This study explored whether working within Multispecialty INterprofessional Team (MINT) memory clinics has an impact on health care professionals’ perceptions of the challenges, attitudes, and level of collaboration associated with providing dementia care. Surveys were completed by MINT memory clinic members pre- and 6-months post-clinic launch. A total of 228 pre-and-post-training surveys were matched for analysis. After working in the MINT memory clinics for 6 months, there were significant reductions in mean ratings of the level of challenge associated with various aspects of dementia care, and significant increases in the frequency with which respondents experienced enthusiasm, inspiration, and pride in their work in dementia care and in ratings of the extent of collaboration for dementia care. This study provides some insights into the effect of collaborative, interprofessional approaches on health care professionals’ perceptions of the challenges and attitudes associated with providing dementia care and level of collaboration with other health professionals.

In Japan, 4.6 million people are living with dementia and the number is expected to rise to 7 million by 2025. Amyloid-β (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) is used for cognitively normal Japanese people with or without subjective cognitive decline (SCD) for the purpose of clinical trials or diagnosis. Nevertheless, no empirical studies have been conducted on the safety of disclosing amyloid status to such populations. We conducted amyloid PET imaging on 42 participants (Aβ positive (n = 10) and negative (n = 32)). State anxiety and depression were measured at pre- and post-disclosure, and test-related distress at post-disclosure. Mean state anxiety and depression scores were below the cut-off through pre- and post-disclosure in the Aβ positive and negative groups. State anxiety and depression did not change over time and were not different between groups. Mean test-related distress scores were within normal limits at post-disclosure in both groups. No significant difference was found between groups. Disclosing Aβ positive results did not cause greater mood disturbance than negative results in a short period of time. The short-term psychological safety of disclosing Aβ PET results to asymptomatic Japanese adults with SCD was indicated.

The implementation in Ontario of 15 primary-care–based interprofessional memory clinics represented a unique model of team-based case management aimed at increasing capacity for dementia care at the primary-care level. Each clinic tracked referrals; in a subset of clinics, charts were audited by geriatricians, clinic members were interviewed, and patients, caregivers, and referring physicians completed satisfaction surveys. Across all clinics, 582 patients were assessed, and 8.9 per cent were referred to a specialist. Patients and caregivers were very satisfied with the care received, as were referring family physicians, who reported increased capacity to manage dementia. Geriatricians’ chart audits revealed a high level of agreement with diagnosis and management. This study demonstrated acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effectiveness of the primary-care memory clinic model. Led by specially trained family physicians, it provided timely access to high-quality collaborative dementia care, impacting health service utilization by more-efficient use of scarce geriatric specialist resources.

Primary care–based memory clinics are attracting increasing interest because they present an opportunity to improve dementia diagnosis and management. In Ontario, more than 30 primary care setting participated in a training program aimed at assisting participants to establish an independent memory clinic in their practice setting. This article outlines the key lessons learned in implementing these clinics, on the basis of a study that – used an interview methodology with memory clinic team members and – identified facilitating factors, challenges, and suggestions for sustainability. Of key importance was access to training that facilitates knowledge transfer and supports practice change, interprofessional collaboration, and ongoing infrastructure support. Suggestions for clinic implementation and ongoing capacity building were identified. Lessons learned are applicable to the implementation of other chronic-disease care models aimed at improving the primary care management of complex chronic conditions.

Background: Connecting willing patients with dementia to suitable clinical research studies has been historically challenging. The United Kingdom Dementia and Neurodegenerative Research Network (DeNDRoN) was established to link patients into high-quality studies. One component is DemReg, a register of dementia patients and their carers who have agreed to be approached regarding future research studies. The limited literature highlights the predominance of altruism mediating research register participation. The objective of this study was to understand the motivations of patients and carers to participate in DemReg.

Methods: There were 107 participants in the study, interviewed using a questionnaire to determine which factors were important in their decision to be on the register. The study compared the proportion of the altruistic motivations articulated with the proportion of the other answers offered.

Results: The two most important motivators for registering on DemReg were to help others (44%; p < 0.001) or themselves (29%; p < 0.001) and altruistic motives took precedence over those for personal benefit. Participants were not motivated by the prospect of payment or by concern that they would be letting down their clinician if they did not register.

Conclusions: There are currently major projects within the United Kingdom to increase the number of patients on dementia registers and to further involvement in dementia research. This study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to assess the motivations of patients and carers for joining a dementia research register in the United Kingdom, and the findings highlight the importance of altruistic motives.

Background: Subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) is a potential early marker for actual cognitive decline. The cognitive manifestation of the SCI stage is, however, largely unknown. Self-report instruments developed especially for use in the SCI population are lacking, and many SCI studies have not excluded mild cognitive impairment and dementia. We developed and tested a patient-based questionnaire on everyday cognitive function aiming to discriminate between patients with subjective, but not objective, cognitive impairment and healthy controls.

Methods: Individuals experiencing cognitive impairment were interviewed to generate a pool of items. After condensing to 97 items, we tested the questionnaire in 93 SCI patients seeking care at a memory clinic (age M = 64.5 years, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) M = 29.0) and 50 healthy controls (age M = 69.6 years, MMSE M = 29.3). Further item reduction was conducted to maximize that remaining items would discriminate between SCI patients and controls, using a conservative α level and requiring medium to high effect sizes. Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity was subsequently examined.

Results: Forty-five items discriminated between the groups, resulting in the Sahlgrenska Academy Self-reported Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire (SASCI-Q). Internal consistency was high and correlations to a single question on memory functioning were of medium to large sizes. Most remaining items were related to the memory domain.

Conclusion: The SASCI-Q discriminates between SCI patients and healthy controls and demonstrates satisfying psychometric properties. The instrument provides a research method for examining SCI and forms a foundation for future examining which SCI symptoms predict objective cognitive decline. The cognitive manifestation of the SCI stage is mostly related to experiences of memory deficits.

Background: To examine the discriminant validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for dementia at a memory clinic setting.

Methods: Memory clinic patients were administered the MoCA, MMSE, and a comprehensive formal neuropsychological battery. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subtypes were dichotomized into two groups: single domain–MCI (sd–MCI) and multiple domain-MCI (md–MCI). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory ability of the MoCA and the MMSE.

Results: Two hundred thirty patients were recruited, of which 136 (59.1%) were diagnosed with dementia, 61 (26.5%) with MCI, and 33 (14.3%) with no cognitive impairment (NCI). The majority of MCI patients had md–MCI (n = 36, 59%). The MoCA had significantly larger AUCs than the MMSE in discriminating md–MCI from the lower risk group for incident dementia (NCI and sd–MCI) [MoCA 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86–0.98) vs. MMSE 0.84 (95% CI, 0.75–0.92), p = 0.02). At their optimal cut-off points, the MoCA (19/20) remained superior to the MMSE (23/24) in detecting md–MCI [sensitivity: 0.83 vs. 0.72; specificity: 0.86 vs. 0.83; PPV: 0.79 vs. 0.72; NPV: 0.89 vs. 0.83; correctly classified: 85.1% vs. 78.7%].

Conclusion: The MoCA is superior to the MMSE in the detection of patients with cognitive impairment at higher risk for incident dementia at a memory clinic setting.

Background: This aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment in patients referred to a memory clinic, alone and in combination with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).

Methods: This was a pragmatic prospective study of consecutive referrals attending a memory clinic (n = 150) over an 18-month period. Patients were diagnosed using standard clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia (DSM-IV) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI; cognitive impairment prevalence = 43%) independent of MoCA test scores.

Results: MoCA proved acceptable to patients and was quick and easy to use. Using the cut-offs for MoCA and MMSE specified in the index paper (≥26/30), MoCA was more sensitive than MMSE (0.97 vs 0.65) but less specific (0.60 vs 0.89), with better diagnostic accuracy (area under Receiver Operating Characteristic curve 0.91 vs 0.83). Downward adjustment of the MoCA cut-off to ≥20/30 maximized test accuracy and improved specificity (0.95) for some loss of sensitivity (0.63). Combining MoCA with the MMSE – either in series or in parallel – did not improve diagnostic utility above that with either test alone.

Conclusions: In a memory clinic population, MoCA proved sensitive for the diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Use of a cut-off lower than that specified in the index study may be required to improve overall test accuracy and specificity for some loss of sensitivity in populations with a high prior probability of cognitive impairment. Combining the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) with the MMSE did not improve diagnostic utility.