GET THE APP

Online Programme “Symparastasi”: Psychoeducation and Multicomponent Exercise Programme to the Caregivers of Patients with MCI and Mild Dementia: An Original RCT
..

Journal of Clinical Case Reports

ISSN: 2165-7920

Open Access

Research Article - (2024) Volume 14, Issue 5

Online Programme “Symparastasi”: Psychoeducation and Multicomponent Exercise Programme to the Caregivers of Patients with MCI and Mild Dementia: An Original RCT

Tatiana Danai Dimitriou1* and Evangelia Zacharia2
*Correspondence: Tatiana Danai Dimitriou, Department of Neurology, International Hellenic University, 44 Salaminos str., Halandri, Attica 15232, Greece, Tel: +0030 6978113357, Email:
1Department of Neurology, International Hellenic University, 44 Salaminos str., Halandri, Attica 15232, Greece
2Fitness Specialists, International Hellenic University, 44 Salaminos str., Halandri, Attica 15232, Greece

Received: 03-Sep-2024, Manuscript No. jccr-24-147949; Editor assigned: 05-Sep-2024, Pre QC No. P-147949; Reviewed: 17-Sep-2024, QC No. Q-147949; Revised: 23-Sep-2024, Manuscript No. R-147949; Published: 30-Sep-2024 , DOI: 10.37421/2165-7920.2024.14.1620
Citation: Dimitriou, Tatiana Danai and Evangelia Zacharia. “Online Programme “Symparastasi”: Psychoeducation and Multicomponent Exercise Programme to the Caregivers of Patients with MCI and Mild Dementia: An Original RCT.” J Clin Case Rep 14 (2024): 1620.
Copyright: © 2024 Dimitriou TD, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Objective: Symparastasi online programme was created because of the quarantines due to covid-19. The professional care centers were closed. After the quarantines there was a need of professional care for patients who live away from the big city centers. Symparastasi programme aimed to educate the informal dementia caregivers in order for them to be able to perform some non-pharmacological interventions to their patients effectively and safely. The programme offered psychoeducation and multicomponent training programme for the caregivers of patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and mild dementia. The aim of the programme was to examine which group had the best results in 3 domains: a) maintain or enhance cognitive abilities, b) Decrease Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms (BPSD) and c) improve the quality of life of patient and caregivers.

Methods/Design: This is randomized controlled trial with 426 participants of both genders. The participants were randomly assigned into 3 groups of 142 patients each. Group A received only the multicomponent training programme, group B received only the psychoeducation and group C received both interventions. The programme was online and the caregivers should have access to the internet. There were 11 multicomponent training videos with progressive difficulty of the exercises, and 11 psychoeducation videos that were referring to topics regard dementia, its progress, its prognosis, prevention, BPSD, non-pharmacological interventions etc. The 12th session was a private session of each patient and caregiver in order to ask questions and be supported emotionally. The measurements used were: the Timed Up and Go test (TUG), Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and 30second Sit to Stand Test for the physical tests. For the cognitive abilities used: Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R). For the neuropsychiatric problems used: Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). For the caregivers the study used the following scales: State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S) in order to record the anxiety levels, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for the depression and NPI and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) in order to record caregivers’ burden. The programme lasted for 24 weeks and there was three recordings of the results: at the beginning of the programme (T1), after 6 months of performing the interventions (T2), and 3 months after the end of the programme (T3), as a follow up.

Results: All groups had positive results in the three domains, but group C had the best results. In terms of cognitive abilities the interventions did not enhance the cognitive skills but tried to maintain the good results for a period of time. BPSD were reduced statistically significant and the caregivers’ burden and anxiety and depression levels were also decreased. Some results maintained over time.

Conclusion: The combination of psychoeducation and multicomponent training programme has positive results in maintaining the cognitive abilities, decrease BPSD and improve the general quality of life of both patients and caregivers in patients with MCI and mild dementia.

Keywords

Dementia caregivers • Non-pharmacological interventions • Psychoeducation • Cognitive abilities

Abbreviations

ACE-R: Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination (revised); AD: Alzheimer’s Disease; BDI: Beck Depression Inventory; BPSD: Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia; CDR_SB: Clinical Dementia Rating scale; CVD: Cardiovascular Dementia; DLB: Lewy Body Dementia; FTD: Frontotemporal Dementia; MCI: Mild Cognitive Impairment; MMSE: Mini Mental State Examination; NPI: Neuropsychiatric Inventory; PDD: Parkinson’s Dementia; PwD: Patients with Dementia; RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial; STAI-S: State Trait Anxiety Inventory; ZBI: Zarit Burden Interview

Introduction

Dementia is a syndrome and an umbrella term characterized by cognitive declines [1]. There are many diseases that may cause non-reversible dementia, but the most common disease is Alzheimer's Disease (AD), following by Cardiovascular disease (VaD), Lewy Body Dementia (DLB), Parkinson’s dementia (PDD) and Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) [2]. Dementia is the seventh leading cause of death and until now there is no cure [3]. It is a disease that mainly affects people aged over 60 years old [1]. Dementia affects all cognitive abilities including memory, learning, attention, concentration, language, social recognition, executive function, and motor perception. Therefore, it affects the patient in his/ her daily activities [1]. There are nowadays 50 million people with dementia globally. The number is estimated to increase to 152 millions in the next 25 years [3]. Dementia affects not only the patients but their families and the economy, as well. The global costs of dementia are estimated at approximately 1 trillion US dollars annually [4].

Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) may lead to dementia and therefore because of its potentially progressive character it is called as a pathological condition [5]. The main difference between MCI stage and dementia is the daily functioning of the patient. Patients in MCI stage may live independently, although they have several cognitive problems, but dementia patients have such cognitive problems that are unable to live independently [5]. Disease progression has as a start MCI and spans in different stages to mild, middle and severe stages of dementia.

Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) are among the earliest signs and symptoms of dementia. They affect approximately the 90-95% of the Patients with Dementia (PwD) [6]. Their severity increases over the course of the disease. BPSD also called as neuropsychiatric symptoms and are associated with many negative outcomes, such as functional impairment and faster cognitive decline. Furthermore, neuropsychiatric symptoms may increase risk for secondary complications, such as earlier institutionalization, falls and fractures [7]. The etiopathogenesis of BPSD remains complex and therefore their cure is difficult. It is probably a result of multiple factors, such as biological, psychological and social factors [8]. According to Cummings JL, et al. [9] there is 12 different BPSD: delusions, hallucinations, agitation/ aggressive behaviour, depression, anxiety, euphoria, apathy, disinhibition, irritability, wandering, sleeping problems and eating disorders. There are some pharmacological solutions, such as antipsychotics, antidepressants etc., that aim to decrease the frequency or the severity of the BPSD, but they have severe side effects such as confusion, hearth arrhythmia, constipation, dizziness, headaches, xerostomia, fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems [10].

As there is no cure for dementia nowadays and the medicine used for the treatment of BPSD have severe side effects it is crucial to mention the importance of non-pharmacological solutions. According to the literature so far there are numerous of studies that have examined the effect of several non-pharmacological interventions in BPSD and their outcomes were very promising [11-13]. Two beneficial non-pharmacological interventions are Psychoeducational programmes and Multi component physical exercise. Psychoeducational programmes either online or face to face have promising results in increasing the quality of life of the patients and their caregivers, as well [14]. These programmes aim to educate the informal caregivers in order to provide them with serious information about the progress of the disease, the possible problems that may occur and the optimal ways in order to manage some problems in dementia. Most of the informal caregivers find the programmes useful [14]. Sometimes informal caregivers do not know how to manage some problems and therefore this causes them stress and depression. Caregivers also called as “second patients” because their anxiety depression levels are higher than other people in their age that are not caregivers [15]. Dementia caregivers often say that they do not have personal time, they experience social isolation and have problems with their sleeping schedule [15]. Hence, it is very important to consider the quality of life of the caregivers, too. Although the programs may differ from one another their main goal is to educate the caregivers in order to make them more useful to their patients and themselves. On the other hand, physical exercise has been examined in numerous of studies which have underlined its importance in preventing dementia and managing some BPSD [16,17]. Multi Component physical exercise includes exercises for flexibility, strength, stamina and endurance. Individuals who consistently exercise have significantly benefits in mood improvement, reduction of depression symptoms, brain plasticity and neurotransmitters’ production [18]. According to recent literature studies multicomponent exercise combines physical components (resistance training and cardiovascular training) and motor components (balance, reaction time and dual exercises, co-ordination) and this is why it is very beneficial to the PwD [19,20]. In addition, multicomponent exercise has also been proven positive in enhancing the general mood and psychology of PwD and their caregivers, too [21].

The current study aims to find which group out of these three, a) participants who only receive multicomponent physical exercise, b) participants who only receive psychoeducational programme and c) participants who receive both interventions have better results in the following three domains: 1) maintaining or increasing the cognitive abilities, 2) decrease BPSD, and 3) increase the quality of life of the patient and the caregiver, as well.

Methods

Design

This is a randomized controlled trial. A total of 426 (N=426) PwD and their caregivers were randomly assigned into 3 different groups. Group A received only the multi component exercise program, Group be received only the psycho educational program, and group she received both interventions. Participants who had motor problems were automatically assigned to group B. Patient and participants have given written consent and all their data remained confidential. All patients were suffered from MCI or mild dementia.

They were recordings of the scales at the beginning of the programme, before any intervention occurred (T1). After six months of receiving the intervention the same scales were also applied and recorded (T2). Then all the interventions stopped and three months after we also applied and recorded the same scales (T3), in order to see if the results maintained over time.

Subjects

The study included participants of both genders and their participants who necessarily had access to the Internet and knew how to use a computer. In order to diagnose the participants some scales were used. For the cognitive abilities we used the Addenbrrokee’s Cognitive Examination Revised test (ACE-R), which includes Mini Mental State of Examination (MMSE) and for the daily functioning we used the CDR_SB scale.

Measurements

The following measurements were used in order to identify the cognitive abilities of the PwD: a) MMSE and b) ACE-R. These two scales are very accurate and higher scores indicate better performance. MMSE is included in ACE-R test. The scales aim to score the following cognitive abilities; memory, language, attention, concentration, fluency, and visuospatial ability of the PwD. For measuring the daily functioning of the PwD we used Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR_SB) scale. For the BPSD we used Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). For measuring the caregivers, we used several scales: State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S) in order to record the anxiety levels, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) for the depression and NPI and Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) in order to record caregivers’ burden. For the multicomponent exercise programme we used the following scales: Timed Up and Go test (TUG) was used to estimate functional mobility and fall risk. Participants were instructed to stand up from a chair, walk as fast as possible for 3 meters, then turn, walk back to the chair and sit down. Additionally, for assess balance ability; the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) was performed. The BBS is the best-known balance measurement tool and it consists of qualitative measures in several postural and every day movements. Each item is scored according to a 5-point scale, from 0 (which indicates the lowest level of function) up to 4 (which indicates the highest level of function). Nagging from 0 to 4 (in which 0 indicates the lowest level of function and 4 indicates the highest level of function). The total possible score is 56 points, and 41–56 suggests a low fall risk, 21–40 a medium fall risk and 0–20 a high fall risk. Muscle strength, measured by a 30 second Sit to Stand Test. The participants were asked to stand up and sit down for a high armless chair as many times as possible during a 30 sec phase.

Interventions

Programme “Symparastasi” was created during the quarantine due to COVID-19 in order to help the patient and the caregivers who then did not have access to the third age centers. When the quarantine stopped the importance of a programme that could provide with knowledge and useful information the caregivers and offer them solutions in their daily problems remained. There are several patients who live away from the big city centers and therefore they do not have access to professional care. Hence, an online programme which could offer them knowledge, psychological support and accurate and safe solutions to their problems seemed to be a solution. First of all, we created a platform (https://symparastash.web.app/#/home). We included in the platform all the above mentioned scales. Then by advertising our programme over the social media and from mouth-to-mouth we collected the sample-participants.

The neuroscientist and the fitness specialist created 12 different videos each (total of 22 videos) for their lessons. The duration of each video was from 15 to 20 minutes. The lessons of the psychoeducational programme had the following structure: a) theoretical background and b) practical solutions. In the first part of theoretical background the neuroscientist talked about dementia, its prognosis, BPSD, other daily problems, prevention, nutrition and other aspects of the disease. In the second part of the practical solutions the neuroscientist offered non-pharmacological interventions for managing some BPSD and other daily problems. The neuroscientist taught the participants how to perform music therapy, aromatherapy, massage therapy, orientation therapy, validation therapy, reminiscence therapy, behavioural techniques and other non-pharmacological interventions that have been proven beneficial according to the literature so far. In particular, according to the literature so far, the music therapy was performed for 45’ every day [22,23]. Aromatherapy in combination with massage therapy was applied in the arms, shoulders, back and wrists of the PwD for 10-20’ and lemon oil and levander were used [24,25]. Orientation and validation therapy was used every day for 45’ [26,27]. Reminiscence therapy was performed for 45’ every day and photo albums and videos were used in order to help the patient recall past and positive memories [28]. Behavioural techniques included proper communication with the PwD, useful and meaningful activities such as gardening together, cooking together, watch a movie together, etc [29]. On the other hand, the fitness specialist started each video with a warm-up, then explained the main exercises by showing how to perform them safely and effectively, and at the end of each video the fitness specialist was showing exercises for cooling down in order to avoid any injury. There was a difficulty progression in the videos.

The caregivers had access to the data by using their username and password that the web developer gave them. A new video was released every two weeks. The participant could not see the next video unless the two weeks had passed. In the time of these two weeks the caregiver should apply to the PwD the interventions taught in the lesson. The 12th lesson was an online private session with the neuroscientist and the fitness specialist. In this session the caregiver and the patient could ask any question and be supported emotionally and independently. During the whole period of the interventions that lasted for 24 weeks (6 months) the participants and the patients could access the tutors by email, phone call, or video call. We had to ensure that the caregivers had understood how to perform the interventions and all the interventions were applied safely to the caregivers. The programme did not aim under any circumstance to replace the formal caregivers and the third age centers. However, it is critical to consider people who live away from the big city centers and do not have access to this kind of care. They should be also provided with the optimal services and they should be able to manage dementia and it's progression with safe solutions and effectively.

Results

A total of 426 PwD and their participants were included in the study. 142 participants in each of 3 groups. 221 participants were females (51.8%). Group A, which received only the multicomponent exercise programme had a mean score of 71.9 years old (SD 4.55), and 9.51 years of education (SD 3.78). Group B which received only the psychoeducation had a mean score of 71.5 years old (SD 4.64) and 9.42 years of education (SD 3.29), and group C which received both interventions had 73.8 years old (SD 3.79) and 7.78 years of education (SD 3.57). Table 1 shows the demographics of the sample. According to the results statistically significant changes were showed in MMSE in T3 test in all groups, which means that the interventions had a positive impact on the cognitive abilities over time. However, in ACE-R scale group C had statistically significant changes in T2 test, but could not maintain the good results in T3 test. All groups decreased the BPSD, according to the NPI scale. Group C had the best results of all other groups. The same result applied in NPI scale for the caregivers, as well. In particular, all groups decreased caregivers’ burden, but only group C had the best results in T3, which means that they maintained the beneficial effects. Group A and group B could not maintain their good results in CDR_SB scale, but group C had a statistically significant difference. In BDI test only group C maintained the good results in T3 but all groups had statistically significant reductions. The same result applied in ZBI test, as well. Group A and C maintained the good results in T3, but group B also had a statistically significant reduction of ZBI test in T2. Lastly, group C had the best result in STAIS scale, but all groups reduced STAIS in T2, as well. Tables show all the scales and their results analytically (Tables 2-39 and Figures 1-8).

Table 1: Descriptives general [41-44].

Descriptives Group Gender Age Years of Education
N a 142 142 142
b 142 142 142
c 142 142 142
Mean a 1.51 71.9 9.51
b 1.52 71.5 9.42
c 1.52 73.8 7.78
Standard deviation a 0.502 4.55 3.78
b 0.501 4.64 3.29
c 0.501 3.79 3.57

Table 2: Descriptives MMSE.

Descriptives Group MMSE T1 MMSE T2 MMSE T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 25.2 25.2 24
b 25.2 24.9 24.4
c 25.1 25.3 24.2
Standard deviation a 1.25 1.11 1.42
b 1.11 1.42 1.46
c 1.08 0.918 0.946

Table 3: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 243.9 2 121.967 266.2 <.001 0.118
Time ✻ Group 22.6 4 5.645 12.3 <.001 0.011
Residual 382.2 834 0.458  -  -
Between Subjects Effects Group 2.21 2 1.11 0.325 0.722 0.001
Residual 1417.96 417 3.4  -  -  -

Table 4: Assumptions.

Tests of Sphericity Mauchly’s W p Greenhouse-Geisser ε Huynh-Feldt ε
Χρονική περίοδος 0.624 <.001 0.727 0.729

Table 5: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison        
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b -0.08108 0.1357 417 -0.5977 1
Τ1 c -0.00811 0.1354 417 -0.0599 1
Τ2 a -0.07092 0.0553 417 -1.2815 0.936
Τ2 b 0.21389 0.1372 417 1.5591 0.826
Τ2 c -0.17953 0.1369 417 -1.3111 0.928
Τ3 a 1.11348 0.0804 417 13.844 <.001
Τ3 b 0.68871 0.1457 417 4.7255 <.001
Τ3 c 0.93475 0.1454 417 6.4269 <.001
b Τ1 c 0.07297 0.1359 417 0.537 1
Τ2 a 0.01015 0.1372 417 0.074 1
Τ2 b 0.29496 0.0557 417 5.2919 <.001
Τ2 c -0.09846 0.1374 417 -0.7165 0.999
Τ3 a 1.19455 0.1456 417 8.2041 <.001
Τ3 b 0.76978 0.081 417 9.5027 <.001
Τ3 c 1.01583 0.1459 417 6.9627 <.001
c Τ2 a -0.06282 0.1369 417 -0.4588 1
Τ2 b 0.22199 0.1374 417 1.6154 0.796
Τ2 c -0.17143 0.0555 417 -3.0866 0.055
Τ3 a 1.12158 0.1454 417 7.715 <.001
Τ3 b 0.69681 0.146 417 4.7738 <.001
Τ3 c 0.94286 0.0807 417 11.681 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 0.28481 0.1387 417 2.0538 0.507
Τ2 c -0.10861 0.1384 417 -0.7846 0.997
Τ3 a 1.1844 0.0998 417 11.8635 <.001
Τ3 b 0.75963 0.1471 417 5.1623 <.001
Τ3 c 1.00567 0.1469 417 6.8481 <.001
b Τ2 c -0.39342 0.1389 417 -2.8319 0.109
Τ3 a 0.89959 0.147 417 6.1183 <.001
Τ3 b 0.47482 0.1006 417 4.7222 <.001
Τ3 c 0.72086 0.1473 417 4.8931 <.001
c Τ3 a 1.29301 0.1468 417 8.8082 <.001
Τ3 b 0.86824 0.1474 417 5.8912 <.001
Τ3 c 1.11429 0.1002 417 11.1216 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b -0.42477 0.155 417 -2.7396 0.137
Τ3 c -0.17872 0.1548 417 -1.1548 0.965
b Τ3 c 0.24604 0.1553 417 1.5841 0.813

Table 6: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b -0.0737 0.127 417 -0.579 0.831
  c -0.0985 0.127 417 -0.775 0.718
b c -0.0248 0.127 417 -0.195 0.979

Table 7: Descriptives ACE-R.

Descriptives Group ACE T1 ACE-R T2 ACE-R T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 91.8 92 90.2
b 91.8 91.9 90.3
c 92 92.4 91.1
Standard deviation a 2.01 1.92 2.43
b 2.11 2.02 2.61
c 2.45 1.87 2.32

Table 8: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 623.5 2 311.75 562.8 <.001 0.094
Time ✻ Group 19.6 4 4.903 8.85 <.001 0.003
Residual 462 834 0.554
Between Subjects Effects Group 61.6 2 30.8 2.34 0.098 0.009
Residual 5491.1 417 13.2  -

Table 9: Assumptions.

Tests of Sphericity Mauchly’s W p Greenhouse-Geisser ε Huynh-Feldt ε
Time 0.749 <.001 0.799 0.802

Table 10: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b 0.0593 0.2582 417 0.23 1
Τ1 c -0.1634 0.2577 417 -0.634 0.999
Τ2 a -0.1348 0.0627 417 -2.151 0.44
Τ2 b -0.099 0.2427 417 -0.408 1
Τ2 c -0.5134 0.2423 417 -2.119 0.462
Τ3 a 1.6454 0.0982 417 16.76 <.001
Τ3 b 1.5773 0.2764 417 5.706 <.001
Τ3 c 0.7937 0.2759 417 2.877 0.097
b Τ1 c -0.2227 0.2586 417 -0.861 0.995
Τ2 a -0.194 0.2429 417 -0.799 0.997
Τ2 b -0.1583 0.0631 417 -2.508 0.231
Τ2 c -0.5727 0.2433 417 -2.354 0.312
Τ3 a 1.5861 0.2762 417 5.743 <.001
Τ3 b 1.518 0.0989 417 15.352 <.001
Τ3 c 0.7344 0.2767 417 2.654 0.168
c Τ2 a 0.0287 0.2424 417 0.118 1
Τ2 b 0.0644 0.2432 417 0.265 1
Τ2 c -0.35 0.0629 417 -5.566 <.001
Τ3 a 1.8088 0.2757 417 6.56 <.001
Τ3 b 1.7407 0.2769 417 6.287 <.001
Τ3 c 0.9571 0.0985 417 9.715 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 0.0358 0.2264 417 0.158 1
Τ2 c -0.3787 0.226 417 -1.675 0.761
Τ3 a 1.7801 0.1 417 17.795 <.001
Τ3 b 1.712 0.2623 417 6.528 <.001
Τ3 c 0.9285 0.2617 417 3.548 0.013
b Τ2 c -0.4144 0.2268 417 -1.827 0.664
Τ3 a 1.7444 0.2618 417 6.663 <.001
Τ3 b 1.6763 0.1008 417 16.637 <.001
Τ3 c 0.8927 0.2624 417 3.403 0.021
c Τ3 a 2.1588 0.2614 417 8.258 <.001
Τ3 b 2.0907 0.2626 417 7.961 <.001
Τ3 c 1.3071 0.1004 417 13.02 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b -0.0681 0.2933 417 -0.232 1
Τ3 c -0.8517 0.2928 417 -2.909 0.09
b Τ3 c -0.7836 0.2939 417 -2.666 0.163

Table 11: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison          
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b 0.00898 0.25 417 0.0359 0.999
  c -0.46459 0.25 417 -1.8586 0.152
b c -0.47357 0.251 417 -1.8878 0.143

Table 12: Descriptives NPI.

Descriptives Group NPI Total NPI Total T2 NPI Total T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 24.9 19.3 22.9
b 25.4 16.9 21
c 25.6 12.6 14.6
Standard deviation a 3.2 4.44 3.68
b 2.01 5.44 5.74
c 2.12 4.62 4.96

Table 13: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 17595 2 8797.47 1093 <.001 0.364
Time ✻ Group 3424 4 856 106 <.001 0.071
Residual 6715 834 8.05  -  -  -
Between Subjects Effects Group 5149 2 2574.5 69.3 <.001 0.106
Residual 15485 417 37.1  -

Table 14: Assumptions.

Tests of Sphericity Mauchly’s W p Greenhouse-Geisser ε Huynh-Feldt ε
Time 0.516 <.001 0.674 0.675

Table 15: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b -0.467 0.299 417 -1.559 0.827
Τ1 c -0.671 0.299 417 -2.245 0.378
Τ2 a 5.574 0.398 417 14.006 <.001
Τ2 b 8.059 0.461 417 17.492 <.001
Τ2 c 12.336 0.459 417 26.853 <.001
Τ3 a 2.028 0.386 417 5.25 <.001
Τ3 b 3.908 0.463 417 8.436 <.001
Τ3 c 10.286 0.462 417 22.269 <.001
b Τ1 c -0.204 0.3 417 -0.682 0.999
Τ2 a 6.041 0.459 417 13.167 <.001
Τ2 b 8.525 0.401 417 21.267 <.001
Τ2 c 12.803 0.46 417 27.827 <.001
Τ3 a 2.495 0.461 417 5.408 <.001
Τ3 b 4.374 0.389 417 11.241 <.001
Τ3 c 10.753 0.463 417 23.244 <.001
c Τ2 a 6.245 0.458 417 13.623 <.001
Τ2 b 8.73 0.461 417 18.934 <.001
Τ2 c 13.007 0.399 417 32.564 <.001
Τ3 a 2.699 0.461 417 5.856 <.001
Τ3 b 4.578 0.464 417 9.877 <.001
Τ3 c 10.957 0.388 417 28.26 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 2.484 0.577 417 4.304 <.001
Τ2 c 6.762 0.576 417 11.736 <.001
Τ3 a -3.546 0.187 417 -18.975 <.001
Τ3 b -1.667 0.579 417 -2.878 0.097
Τ3 c 4.712 0.578 417 8.15 <.001
b Τ2 c 4.278 0.578 417 7.398 <.001
Τ3 a -6.03 0.579 417 -10.412 <.001
Τ3 b -4.151 0.188 417 -22.054 <.001
Τ3 c 2.228 0.58 417 3.839 0.004
c Τ3 a -10.308 0.578 417 -17.829 <.001
Τ3 b -8.429 0.58 417 -14.526 <.001
Τ3 c -2.05 0.188 417 -10.931 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b 1.879 0.581 417 3.233 0.035
Τ3 c 8.258 0.58 417 14.234 <.001
b Τ3 c 6.379 0.582 417 10.956 <.001

Table 16: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b 1.3 0.421 417 3.09 0.006
c 4.78 0.42 417 11.39 <.001
b c 3.48 0.421 417 8.27 <.001

Table 17: Descriptives NPI car.

Descriptives Group NPI Caregiver Total NPIC Total T2 NPIC Total T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 18.3 10.6 17.4
b 18.4 9.99 14.9
c 18.6 10.2 11.8
Standard deviation a 2.01 1.71 2.44
b 1.57 1.71 3.6
c 1.92 2.66 2.05

Table 18: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Within Subjects Effects Time 14208 2 7103.79 2198 <.001
Time ✻ Group 1494 4 373.48 116 <.001
Residual 2695 834 3.23  -
Between Subjects Effects Group 770 2 385.24 43.2 <.001
Residual 3717 417 8.91  -  -

Table 19: Assumptions.

Tests of Sphericity Mauchly’s W p Greenhouse-Geisser ε Huynh-Feldt ε
Time 0.983 0.029 0.983 0.988

Table 20: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons -Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b -0.0554 0.221 417 -0.25 1
Τ1 c -0.2882 0.221 417 -1.304 0.93
Τ2 a 7.7589 0.218 417 35.512 <.001
Τ2 b 8.3835 0.235 417 35.726 <.001
Τ2 c 8.1618 0.234 417 34.851 <.001
Τ3 a 0.9645 0.223 417 4.323 <.001
Τ3 b 3.4051 0.282 417 12.074 <.001
Τ3 c 6.5832 0.281 417 23.402 <.001
b Τ1 c -0.2328 0.222 417 -1.05 0.981
Τ2 a 7.8142 0.234 417 33.327 <.001
Τ2 b 8.4388 0.22 417 38.35 <.001
Τ2 c 8.2172 0.235 417 34.976 <.001
Τ3 a 1.0199 0.281 417 3.626 0.01
Τ3 b 3.4604 0.225 417 15.399 <.001
Τ3 c 6.6386 0.282 417 23.547 <.001
c Τ2 a 8.0471 0.234 417 34.375 <.001
Τ2 b 8.6717 0.235 417 36.896 <.001
Τ2 c 8.45 0.219 417 38.538 <.001
Τ3 a 1.2527 0.281 417 4.459 <.001
Τ3 b 3.6933 0.282 417 13.082 <.001
Τ3 c 6.8714 0.224 417 30.688 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 0.6246 0.247 417 2.528 0.222
Τ2 c 0.4029 0.247 417 1.634 0.786
Τ3 a -6.7943 0.2 417 -33.97 <.001
Τ3 b -4.3538 0.292 417 -14.888 <.001
Τ3 c -1.1756 0.292 417 -4.029 0.002
b Τ2 c -0.2217 0.248 417 -0.896 0.993
Τ3 a -7.4189 0.292 417 -25.421 <.001
Τ3 b -4.9784 0.201 417 -24.714 <.001
Τ3 c -1.8003 0.293 417 -6.155 <.001
c Τ3 a -7.1973 0.291 417 -24.693 <.001
Τ3 b -4.7567 0.293 417 -16.245 <.001
Τ3 c -1.5786 0.201 417 -7.864 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b 2.4405 0.331 417 7.371 <.001
Τ3 c 5.6187 0.331 417 17 <.001
b Τ3 c 3.1782 0.332 417 9.581 <.001

Table 21: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b 1.003 0.206 417 4.87 <.001
c 1.911 0.206 417 9.29 <.001
b c 0.908 0.206 417 4.4 <.001

Table 22: Descriptives CDR_SB.

Descriptives Group CDR_SB CDR_SB T2 CDR_SB T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 0.768 0.599 0.759
b 0.771 0.616 0.766
c 0.637 0.546 0.546
Standard deviation a 0.25 0.2 0.251
b 0.25 0.212 0.25
c 0.224 0.145 0.146

Table 23: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 4.45 2 2.2266 113.2 <.001 0.063
Time ✻ Group 1.13 4 0.2835 14.4 <.001 0.016
Residual 16.41 834 0.0197  -  -
Between Subjects Effects Group 5.22 2 2.61 25.2 <.001 0.074
Residual 43.11 417 0.103  -

Table 24: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b -0.00388 0.0289 417 -0.134 1
Τ1 c 0.13022 0.0289 417 4.512 <.001
Τ2 a 0.17021 0.0188 417 9.066 <.001
Τ2 b 0.1544 0.0259 417 5.969 <.001
Τ2 c 0.22307 0.0258 417 8.637 <.001
Τ3 a 0.01064 0.014 417 0.76 0.998
Τ3 b 0.00332 0.0277 417 0.12 1
Τ3 c 0.22307 0.0276 417 8.068 <.001
b Τ1 c 0.1341 0.029 417 4.629 <.001
Τ2 a 0.17409 0.0259 417 6.719 <.001
Τ2 b 0.15827 0.0189 417 8.37 <.001
Τ2 c 0.22695 0.0259 417 8.748 <.001
Τ3 a 0.01452 0.0277 417 0.524 1
Τ3 b 0.00719 0.0141 417 0.51 1
Τ3 c 0.22695 0.0278 417 8.176 <.001
c Τ2 a 0.03999 0.0259 417 1.547 0.832
Τ2 b 0.02418 0.0259 417 0.933 0.991
Τ2 c 0.09286 0.0188 417 4.928 <.001
Τ3 a -0.11958 0.0277 417 -4.323 <.001
Τ3 b -0.1269 0.0277 417 -4.573 <.001
Τ3 c 0.09286 0.014 417 6.61 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b -0.01582 0.0225 417 -0.704 0.999
Τ2 c 0.05286 0.0224 417 2.358 0.31
Τ3 a -0.15957 0.017 417 -9.388 <.001
Τ3 b -0.1669 0.0245 417 -6.801 <.001
Τ3 c 0.05286 0.0245 417 2.159 0.435
b Τ2 c 0.06868 0.0225 417 3.053 0.06
Τ3 a -0.14376 0.0245 417 -5.865 <.001
Τ3 b -0.15108 0.0171 417 -8.825 <.001
Τ3 c 0.06868 0.0246 417 2.796 0.12
c Τ3 a -0.21244 0.0245 417 -8.68 <.001
Τ3 b -0.21976 0.0246 417 -8.942 <.001
Τ3 c -2.93e−16 0.0171 417 -1.72e−14 1
Τ3 a Τ3 b -0.00732 0.0264 417 -0.277 1
Τ3 c 0.21244 0.0264 417 8.05 <.001
b Τ3 c 0.21976 0.0265 417 8.298 <.001

Table 25: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b -0.00901 0.0222 417 -0.406 0.913
c 0.13184 0.0221 417 5.953 <.001
b c 0.14084 0.0222 417 6.336 <.001

Table 26: Descriptives BDI.

Descriptives Group BDI BDI T2 BDI T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 19.5 11.4 17.8
b 18 10.6 16.7
c 19.4 10.7 15.6
Standard deviation a 3.15 2.61 3.35
b 2.73 2.86 3.67
c 3.38 3.29 4.58

Table 27: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 14390 2 7194.94 2234.8 <.001 0.498
Time ✻ Group 258 4 64.61 20.1 <.001 0.009
Residual 2685 834 3.22      
Between Subjects Effects Group 300 2 150 5.55 0.004 0.01
Residual 11263 417 27      

Table 28: Assumptions.

Tests of Sphericity Mauchly's W p Greenhouse-Geisser ε Huynh-Feldt ε
Time 0.988 0.082 0.988 0.993

Table 29: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b 1.4467 0.369 417 3.923 0.003
Τ1 c 0.0396 0.368 417 0.108 1
Τ2 a 8.0567 0.224 417 35.897 <.001
Τ2 b 8.828 0.361 417 24.477 <.001
Τ2 c 8.6968 0.36 417 24.155 <.001
Τ3 a 1.695 0.212 417 8.014 <.001
Τ3 b 2.7992 0.421 417 6.651 <.001
Τ3 c 3.8325 0.42 417 9.127 <.001
b Τ1 c -1.4071 0.369 417 -3.809 0.005
Τ2 a 6.61 0.361 417 18.322 <.001
Τ2 b 7.3813 0.226 417 32.653 <.001
Τ2 c 7.2501 0.361 417 20.062 <.001
Τ3 a 0.2483 0.42 417 0.591 1
Τ3 b 1.3525 0.213 417 6.349 <.001
Τ3 c 2.3858 0.421 417 5.666 <.001
c Τ2 a 8.0171 0.36 417 22.264 <.001
Τ2 b 8.7884 0.361 417 24.322 <.001
Τ2 c 8.6571 0.225 417 38.435 <.001
Τ3 a 1.6554 0.42 417 3.946 0.003
Τ3 b 2.7596 0.421 417 6.548 <.001
Τ3 c 3.7929 0.212 417 17.868 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 0.7713 0.352 417 2.188 0.415
Τ2 c 0.64 0.352 417 1.819 0.669
Τ3 a -6.3617 0.205 417 -31.084 <.001
Τ3 b -5.2575 0.414 417 -12.704 <.001
Τ3 c -4.2243 0.413 417 -10.231 <.001
b Τ2 c -0.1312 0.353 417 -0.372 1
Τ3 a -7.133 0.413 417 -17.27 <.001
Τ3 b -6.0288 0.206 417 -29.247 <.001
Τ3 c -4.9955 0.414 417 -12.068 <.001
c Τ3 a -7.0017 0.412 417 -16.974 <.001
Τ3 b -5.8975 0.414 417 -14.233 <.001
Τ3 c -4.8643 0.205 417 -23.683 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b 1.1042 0.467 417 2.367 0.305
Τ3 c 2.1374 0.466 417 4.59 <.001
b Τ3 c 1.0332 0.467 417 2.211 0.4

Table 30: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b 1.107 0.359 417 3.088 0.006
  c 0.939 0.358 417 2.623 0.024
b c -0.168 0.359 417 -0.469 0.886

Table 31: Descriptives ΖΒΙ.

Descriptives Group ZBI ZBI T2 ZBI T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 140
c 142 142 140
Mean a 32.7 22.5 30.4
b 29.8 18.7 27.4
c 29.4 15.4 20.9
Standard deviation a 4.19 5.8 4.38
b 4.92 6.95 5.12
c 5.4 6.19 9.3

Table 32: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 29907 2 14953.6 1044.1 <.001 0.347
Time ✻ Group 1764 4 441 30.8 <.001 0.02
Residual 11973 836 14.3      
Between Subjects Effects Group 9316 2 4657.8 58.8 <.001 0.108
Residual 33106 418 79.2      

Table 33: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b 2.959 0.582 418 5.087 <.001
Τ1 c 3.352 0.582 418 5.762 <.001
Τ2 a 10.241 0.532 418 19.249 <.001
Τ2 b 14.095 0.675 418 20.881 <.001
Τ2 c 17.359 0.675 418 25.717 <.001
Τ3 a 2.333 0.435 418 5.359 <.001
Τ3 b 5.388 0.694 418 7.76 <.001
Τ3 c 11.809 0.694 418 17.008 <.001
b Τ1 c 0.393 0.583 418 0.674 0.999
Τ2 a 7.282 0.674 418 10.798 <.001
Τ2 b 11.136 0.534 418 20.856 <.001
Τ2 c 14.4 0.676 418 21.305 <.001
Τ3 a -0.626 0.694 418 -0.902 0.993
Τ3 b 2.429 0.437 418 5.558 <.001
Τ3 c 8.85 0.695 418 12.731 <.001
c Τ2 a 6.889 0.674 418 10.216 <.001
Τ2 b 10.743 0.676 418 15.894 <.001
Τ2 c 14.007 0.534 418 26.234 <.001
Τ3 a -1.018 0.694 418 -1.468 0.87
Τ3 b 2.036 0.695 418 2.928 0.085
Τ3 c 8.457 0.437 418 19.354 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 3.854 0.756 418 5.095 <.001
Τ2 c 7.118 0.756 418 9.411 <.001
Τ3 a -7.908 0.37 418 -21.382 <.001
Τ3 b -4.854 0.774 418 -6.274 <.001
Τ3 c 1.568 0.774 418 2.027 0.526
b Τ2 c 3.264 0.758 418 4.308 <.001
Τ3 a -11.761 0.774 418 -15.205 <.001
Τ3 b -8.707 0.371 418 -23.46 <.001
Τ3 c -2.286 0.775 418 -2.95 0.08
c Τ3 a -15.026 0.774 418 -19.425 <.001
Τ3 b -11.971 0.775 418 -15.448 <.001
Τ3 c -5.55 0.371 418 -14.953 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b 3.054 0.79 418 3.864 0.004
Τ3 c 9.476 0.79 418 11.988 <.001
b Τ3 c 6.421 0.792 418 8.11 <.001

Table 34: Post hoc comparisons-group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b 3.29 0.613 418 5.36 <.001
c 6.65 0.613 418 10.85 <.001
b c 3.36 0.614 418 5.47 <.001

Table 35: Descriptives STAIS.

Descriptives Group STAIS STAIS T2 STAIS T3
N a 142 142 141
b 142 142 139
c 142 142 140
Mean a 62.1 50.7 59.8
b 63.2 45.1 60.9
c 61.8 40.6 45.4
Standard deviation a 6.09 8.29 6.8
b 4.09 11 4.54
c 4.87 9.76 9.83

Table 36: Repeated measures ANOVA.

    Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
Within Subjects Effects Time 60664 2 30332 1513 <.001 0.374
Time✻ Group 11516 4 2879 144 <.001 0.071
Residual 16724 834 20.1  -  -  -
Between Subjects Effects Group 16817 2 8409 62.2 <.001 0.104
Residual 56360 417 135  -  -

Table 37: Assumptions.

Tests of Sphericity Mauchly's W p Greenhouse-Geisser ε Huynh-Feldt ε
Time 0.695 <.001 0.766 0.768

Table 38: Post hoc tests.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Time ✻ Group
Comparison
Time Group Time Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
Τ1 a Τ1 b -1.116 0.607 417 -1.839 0.656
Τ1 c 0.228 0.606 417 0.376 1
Τ2 a 11.418 0.661 417 17.273 <.001
Τ2 b 16.97 0.931 417 18.236 <.001
Τ2 c 21.464 0.928 417 23.13 <.001
Τ3 a 2.248 0.419 417 5.365 <.001
Τ3 b 1.165 0.758 417 1.536 0.838
Τ3 c 16.707 0.757 417 22.084 <.001
b Τ1 c 1.344 0.608 417 2.211 0.401
Τ2 a 12.534 0.927 417 13.524 <.001
Τ2 b 18.086 0.666 417 27.165 <.001
Τ2 c 22.58 0.929 417 24.295 <.001
Τ3 a 3.364 0.756 417 4.448 <.001
Τ3 b 2.281 0.422 417 5.404 <.001
Τ3 c 17.823 0.758 417 23.505 <.001
c Τ2 a 11.19 0.926 417 12.083 <.001
Τ2 b 16.742 0.931 417 17.977 <.001
Τ2 c 21.236 0.663 417 32.009 <.001
Τ3 a 2.02 0.756 417 2.674 0.161
Τ3 b 0.936 0.759 417 1.233 0.949
Τ3 c 16.479 0.421 417 39.187 <.001
Τ2 a Τ2 b 5.552 1.165 417 4.767 <.001
Τ2 c 10.045 1.163 417 8.64 <.001
Τ3 a -9.17 0.491 417 -18.691 <.001
Τ3 b -10.254 1.032 417 -9.933 <.001
Τ3 c 5.288 1.031 417 5.13 <.001
b Τ2 c 4.494 1.167 417 3.851 0.004
Τ3 a -14.722 1.034 417 -14.234 <.001
Τ3 b -15.806 0.494 417 -31.986 <.001
Τ3 c -0.264 1.036 417 -0.255 1
c Τ3 a -19.216 1.032 417 -18.621 <.001
Τ3 b -20.299 1.035 417 -19.62 <.001
Τ3 c -4.757 0.492 417 -9.662 <.001
Τ3 a Τ3 b -1.084 0.883 417 -1.228 0.95
Τ3 c 14.458 0.881 417 16.412 <.001
b Τ3 c 15.542 0.884 417 17.58 <.001

Table 39: Post hoc comparisons–group.

Post Hoc Comparisons-Group
Comparison
Group Group Mean Difference SE df t ptukey
a b 1.12 0.802 417 1.39 0.346
c 8.24 0.801 417 10.29 <.001
b c 7.13 0.804 417 8.87 <.001
clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 1. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives MMSE.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 2. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives ACE-R.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 3. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives NPI.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 4. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives NPI Car.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 5. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives CDR_SB.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 6. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives BDI.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 7. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives ΖΒΙ.

clinical-case-reports-marginal-descriptives

Figure 8. Estimated marginal means (Time ✻ Group) of descriptives STAIS.

Discussion

According to the results group C, which received both the multicomponent training programme and the psychoeducation had the best results in three domains: a) increased the cognitive abilities, b) decreased BPSD, and c) enhanced the general quality of life of the PwD and the caregivers, too. It is important to mention that all groups had positive results in all scales, which means that both these non-pharmacological interventions have beneficial effects in PwD and their caregivers. However, the combination of multicomponent exercise and psychoeducation has better results in T2 and T3. This is crucial because it is important to find interventions that can last over time. Nevertheless, in some cases the good results did not maintain over time, which means that in order to have the best outcomes of the interventions it is recommended to be applied in a daily or weekly schedule.

Furthermore, group A and B did not show any statistically significant change in T2 period of ACE-R test. However, the result is not disappointing. It is important to maintain the cognitive abilities of the PwD, when it is not possible to enhance them. Therefore, the result that group A and B in T2 period of ACE-R showed that the interventions maintained the good cognitive abilities of the participants. For the cognitive abilities it seems that if the interventions stop, then the cognitive declines are coming. None of the groups could maintain the good outcomes in T3 period, which means that we have to give feedback to our patients constantly. On the other hand, all groups decreased BPSD, according to the NPI scale. Group C had the best results, which means that the combination of the two non-pharmacological interventions had the best outcomes in decreasing some BPSD. According to our results, the total score of NPI was decreased in all groups, but only group C maintained the good results over time. Our results are in accordance with previous studies. Numerous studies have shown that physical exercise can effectively reduce some BPSD, such as wandering, depression, anxiety and agitation [16,30-33]. At the same time, several studies have shown that psychoeducation can provide the caregivers with useful knowledge in order for them to be able to manage BPSD [34]. Our programme aimed to give solutions to the daily behavioural problems of the PwD and also explain how to control all BPSD with non-pharmacological solutions, according to previous studies that have shown beneficial results [34]. Lastly, only group C maintained the good results in CDR_SB scale, which means that the daily functioning of the PwD could maintain over time if they had previously received both interventions. However, it is critical to mention that group A and B also helped the participants to enhance their daily functioning in T2 period.

In terms of the caregivers, the results are also interesting. BDI scale showed that all groups decreased the depression levels of the caregivers in T2 period, but only group A and especially group C maintained better the results. Caregivers experience levels of anxiety and depression, because of the caregiving [15,35]. Caring a PwD is sometimes a full time job, which requires of the caregiver to give most of his/ her time, money and personal well-being. According to the literature the caregivers often suffer from physical and emotional problems [36]. Therefore, it is important to find interventions that can effectively enhance the well-being of the caregivers. Moreover, ZBI test showed positive results in all groups, however only group A and C maintained the good results over time. This is crucial because it seems that physical exercise when applied daily for 6 months in a row can maintain a promising low level of burden in the caregivers. In addition, STAIS scale also pointed that all groups decreased the anxiety levels of the caregivers. Best results were found in group C, which means that the combination of the interventions had the best outcomes for the caregivers.

Considering the fact that there is no cure for dementia and the current pharmacological solutions have severe side effects, as mentioned above, it is critical to find non-psychological interventions that can effectively maintain the cognitive abilities of the patient, decrease BPSD, and enhance the quality of life of the patient and the caregiver too. Therefore it is remarkable that we found combination of non-pharmacological solutions that can effectively be applied to the patient from the caregivers and also have a positive outcome in those three domains that are very essential in this disease.

In addition, according to a recent review which included all the original studies that have combined the psychoeducation programme with a multicomponent training programme, our results seem to be in accordance with most of these results. The first trial of Skov SS, et al. [37] used an intervention with two weekly training sessions. Their intervention lasted for 15 weeks and the duration was three hours per session. The study had 7 -10 participants and the programme also included 1.5 hour physical exercise which was combined with either one hour of CST or either one hour of psychoeducation. This is a trial that took place in Copenhagen and the sample was consisted from 44 participants. The study used scales as; MMSE, and Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD). The training session was applied by two psychotherapists in a workout room and they included warm-up, cycling, short breaks and strength exercises. On the other hand, the psychoeducational programme lasted for one hour and included themes about dementia. The trial concluded positive results of the combination of the psychoeducation and physical exercise.

Moreover another study with a follow-up test which included 57 patients and 54 participants in a comparison group took place in the Netherlands and included a personal trainer with eight sessions lasted one hour for three months and additionally the training program included exercise for balance flexibility strength and endurance [38]. Educational program aim to give the caregivers knowledge and encourage communication between them and their patients. The programme did not find significant differences in executive functions, but on the other hand it is important that the trial reported positive outcomes in terms of attention. In addition, according to the results of another study which examined the combination of education and multi component training program and had a large sample size of 255 participants, found promising results after the combination of the psychoeducation and the physical exercise. The psychoeducation programme included topics about dementia and the programme lasted for four months. It is very important that this trial underlined that the beneficial results maintained after 13 months after the end of the programme [39]. However, the trial does not mention which measurements used in order to identify its results. Additionally, the last study examined the combination of psychoeducation and physical exercise and took place in 2020 [40]. The sample size was consistent of 153 participants who received the psychoeducation programme for two hours, for six times, and there was another group received psychoeducation with exercise for a minimum of 30 minutes and there was also the attention control group focused on some aspects of dementia and also performed stretching exercises and flexibility. The trial used PROMIS emotional distress-depression instrument for measuring the depressive symptoms and also ZBI scale for the caregivers’ burden. However, this study in contrary with our results did not mention significant differences in caregivers’ distress.

Nevertheless, the previous studies have used (some of them) quiet large sample sizes, however they do not report which measurements scales used for the cognitive and physical tests of the sample. It is also not clear in some cases how frequently the interventions were taken place. On the other hand, none of the above-mentioned trials did not aimed to examine the effect of the combination in the three domains: a) cognitive abilities, b) BPSD and c) quality of life of both patient and caregiver.

Our study has some strengths. We have a large simple size, a strict methodology, we applied the psychoeducational programme as the literature has pointed, we performed the non-pharmacological interventions in a way that the literature so far has mentioned that is most beneficial, we had specialists to perform the videos, we used many scales in order to measure several aspects of the disease, we had quite large duration of our interventions and we had a follow up test. All groups received a very strict, analytical, and clear protocol of how to perform every intervention and at any time of the performing period the informal caregivers could speak with a specialist and be sure that they apply the interventions effectively and safely. The duration of our interventions were in accordance with previous studies and the frequency, as well. Future studies should focus on large samples, strong methodology, extend the duration of the interventions, examine all aspects of the disease, not only the cognitive abilities or the neuropsychiatric problems, include how to decrease caregivers’ burden, and have follow up test, in order to identify if the good results can maintain over time [41-44].

Conclusion

It is very important to find a combination of non-pharmacological interventions that can effectively be performed by informal caregivers and help the patients maintain their cognitive abilities, decrease BPSD, and enhance the general quality of life of the patient and the caregiver, as well. Non-pharmacological interventions should be well researched, because the literature so far mentions promising results. Patients and caregivers who live away from the big city centers and they cannot have access to formal care, should not be ignored. Online programmes can effectively replace the face-to-face meetings and offer to the PwD and their caregivers a professional care, despite the distance. Informal caregivers should be well trained in order to be aware of the disease, know what to expect, have realistic expectations and help their patients and themselves in an effective and right way. Online programme “Symparastasi” gave the opportunity to the informal caregivers to be fully trained on dementia and multicomponent exercise, in order to be able to communicate better with their patients and be better caregivers. It is crucial that the participants mentioned that they enjoyed the programme, and we did not have dropouts, or any injury from the training programme, which means that if the caregivers listen carefully to the videos and perform strictly by the book all the advices, several interventions can be effectively be applied by them.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Livingston, Gill, Jonathan Huntley, Andrew Sommerlad and David Ames, et al. "Dementia prevention, intervention and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission.Lancet 396 10248 (2020): 413-446.
  2. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  3. Bevins, Elizabeth A., Jonathan Peters and Gabriel C. Léger. "The diagnosis and management of reversible dementia syndromes.Curr Treat Options Neurol 23 (2021): 1-13.
  4. Google Scholar        

  5. World Health Organization. "Global status report on the public health response to dementia." (2021).
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  7. Cantarero-Prieto, David, Paloma Lanza Leon, Carla Blazquez-Fernandez and Pascual Sanchez Juan, et al. "The economic cost of dementia: A systematic review.Dementia 19 (2020): 2637-2657.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  9. Kasper, Siegfried, Christian Bancher, Anne Eckert and Hans Förstl, et al. "Management of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI): The need for national and international guidelines.World J Biol Psychiatry 21 (2020): 579-594.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  11. Tampi, Rajesh R., Gargi Bhattacharya and Padmapriya Marpuri. "Managing behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in the era of boxed warnings.Curr Psychiatry Rep 24 (2022): 431-440.
  12. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  13. Calsolaro, Valeria, Grazia Daniela Femminella, Sara Rogani and Salvatore Esposito, et al. "Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia (BPSD) and the use of antipsychotics.Pharm 14 (2021): 246.
  14. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  15. Da Fonseca, I. Cruz, AM Romão Franco, R. Mendes and A. Gamito. "Management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia.Eur Psychiatr Rev 64 (2021): S424-S425.
  16. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  17. Cummings, Jeffrey L., Michael Mega, Katherine Gray and Susan Rosenberg-Thompson, et al. "The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia.Neur 44 (1994): 2308-2308.
  18. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  19. Beeber, Anna Song, Sheryl Zimmerman, Christopher J. Wretman and Stephanie Palmertree, et al. "Potential side effects and adverse events of antipsychotic use for residents with dementia in assisted living: Implications for prescribers, staff and families.J Appl Gerontol 41 (2022): 798-805.
  20. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  21. Moreno-Morales, Celia, Raul Calero, Pedro Moreno-Morales and Cristina Pintado. "Music therapy in the treatment of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Front Med 7 (2020): 160.
  22. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  23. Li, Becky Siu Yin, Carmen Wing Han Chan, Minjie Li and Irene Kit Yee Wong, et al. "Effectiveness and safety of aromatherapy in managing behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia: A mixed-methods systematic review.Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Extra 11 (2022): 273-297.
  24. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  25. Gholamnezhad, Zahra, Mohammad Hossien Boskabady and Zahra Jahangiri. "Exercise and dementia.J Phys Act Health (2020): 303-315.
  26. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  27. Ghosh, Manonita, Melissa Dunham and Beverly O'Connell. "Systematic review of dyadic psychoeducational programs for persons with dementia and their family caregivers.J Clin Nurs 32 (2023): 4228-4248.
  28. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  29. Huang, Si-Sheng. "Depression among caregivers of patients with dementia: Associative factors and management approaches." World J Psychiatry 12  (2022): 59.
  30. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  31. Dimitriou, Tatiana, John Papatriantafyllou, Anastasia Konsta and Dimitrios Kazis, et al. "Non-pharmacological interventions for wandering/aberrant motor behaviour in patients with dementia.Brain Sci 12 (2022): 130.
  32. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  33. Rodrigues, Susana Lígia da Silva, Jamily Matias da Silva, Maria Clara Cordeiro de Oliveira and Charleny Mary Ferreira de Santana, et al. "Physical exercise as a non-pharmacological strategy for reducing behavioral and psychological symptoms in elderly with mild cognitive impairment and dementia: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials."Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr 79 (2021): 1129-1137.
  34. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  35. Valenzuela, Constanza I. San Martín. "Dementia and Physical Therapy." In Dementia in Parkinson’s Disease-Everything you Need to Know. IntechOpen (2021).
  36. Google Scholar          

  37. Borges-Machado, Flávia, Nádia Silva, Paulo Farinatti and Roberto Poton, et al. "Effectiveness of multicomponent exercise interventions in older adults with dementia: A meta-analysis.Gerontol 61 (2021): e449-e462.
  38. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  39. Haeger, Alexa, Ana S. Costa, Sandro Romanzetti and Axel Kilders, et al. "Effect of a multicomponent exercise intervention on brain metabolism: A randomized controlled trial on Alzheimer's pathology (Dementia‐MOVE).Alzh Dement Translat Res Clin Intervent 6 (2020): e12032.
  40. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  41. Madruga, Miguel, Margarita Gozalo, Josué Prieto and Paloma Rohlfs Domínguez, et al. "Effects of a home-based exercise program on mental health for caregivers of relatives with dementia: A randomized controlled trial.Int Psychogeriatr 33 (2021): 359-372.
  42. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  43. Sousa, Lídia, Maria J. Neves, Bárbara Moura and Justine Schneider, et al. "Music‐based interventions for people living with dementia, targeting behavioral and psychological symptoms: A scoping review.Int J Geriatr Psychiatry (2021): 1664-1690.
  44. Vink, Annemiek C., Manon S. Bruinsma and Rob JPM Scholten. "Music therapy for people with dementia.CDSR 4 (2003).
  45. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  46. Fu, Chieh-Yu, Wendy Moyle and Marie Cooke. "A randomised controlled trial of the use of aromatherapy and hand massage to reduce disruptive behaviour in people with dementia.BMC Complement Altern Med 13 (2013): 1-9.
  47. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  48. Yang, Ya-Ping, Chi-Jane Wang and Jing-Jy Wang. "Effect of aromatherapy massage on agitation and depressive mood in individuals with dementia.J Gerontol Nurs 42 (2016): 38-46.
  49. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  50. Chiu, Hsiao-Yean, Pin-Yuan Chen, Yu-Ting Chen and Hui-Chuan Huang. "Reality orientation therapy benefits cognition in older people with dementia: A meta-analysis.Int J Nurs Stud 86 (2018): 20-28.
  51. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  52. Nishiura, Yuko, Misato Nihei, Hiromi Nakamura-Thomas and Takenobu Inoue. "Effectiveness of using assistive technology for time orientation and memory, in older adults with or without dementia.Disabil Rehabil  Assist  Technol 16 (2021): 472-478.
  53. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  54. Saragih, Ita Daryanti, Santo Imanuel Tonapa, Ching‐Teng Yao and Ice Septriani Saragih, et al. "Effects of reminiscence therapy in people with dementia: A systematic review and meta‐analysis.J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 29 (2022): 883-903.
  55. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  56. Backhouse, Tamara, Emma Dudzinski, Anne Killett and Eneida Mioshi. "Strategies and interventions to reduce or manage refusals in personal care in dementia: A systematic review." Int J Nurs Stud 109 (2020): 103640.
  57. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  58. Dimitriou, Tatiana-Danai, Eleni Verykouki, John Papatriantafyllou and Anastasia Konsta, et al. "Non-pharmacological interventions for the anxiety in patients with dementia. A cross-over randomised controlled trial.Behav Brain Res 390 (2020): 112617.
  59. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  60. Dimitriou, Tatiana-Danai, Thomas Tegos, Anastasia Konsta and Panagiotis Ioannidis, et al. “Non-Pharmacological Interventions for the Hallucinations in Patients with Dementia.” No. IKEEART-2022-241. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2022).
  61. Google Scholar

  62. Tatiana-Danai, D., P. John, K. Anastasia, K. Dimitrios and A. Loukas. "Non-Pharmacological interventions for the appetiteand eating disorders in patients with dementia.A Cross-Over RCT Adv Clin Med Res 3 (2022): 1-13.
  63. Google Scholar         

  64. Dimitriou, Tatiana-Danai, Thomas Tegos, Anastasia Konsta and Panagiotis Ioannidis, et al. "Non-Pharmacological Interventions for the Disinhibition in Patients with Dementia.IJMSCI 10 IKEEART-2023-606 (2023): 6622-6634.
  65. Google Scholar

  66. Frias, Cindy E., Marta Garcia‐Pascual, Mercedes Montoro and Nuria Ribas, et al. "Effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention for caregivers of people with dementia with regard to burden, anxiety and depression: A systematic review.J Adv Nurs 76 (2020): 787-802.
  67. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  68. Barrera-Caballero, Samara, Rosa Romero-Moreno, María del Sequeros Pedroso-Chaparro and Ricardo Olmos, et al. "Stress, cognitive fusion and comorbid depressive and anxiety symptomatology in dementia caregivers.Psychol Aging 36 (2021): 667.
  69. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  70. Zacharopoulou, Georgia, Vassiliki Zacharopoulou and Athina Lazakidou. "Quality of life for caregivers of elderly patients with dementia and measurement tools: A review.Int J Health Res Innov 3 (2015): 49-64.
  71. Google Scholar

  72. Skov, Sofie S., Maj Britt D. Nielsen, Rikke F. Krølner and Laila Øksnebjerg, et al. "A multicomponent psychosocial intervention among people with early-stage dementia involving physical exercise, cognitive stimulation therapy, psychoeducation and counselling: Results from a mixed-methods study.Dementia 21 (2022): 316-334.
  73. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  74. Prick, Anna-Eva, Jacomine De Lange, Erik Scherder and Jos Twisk, et al. "The effects of a multicomponent dyadic intervention with physical exercise on the cognitive functioning of people with dementia: A randomized controlled trial." JAPA 25 (2017): 539-552.
  75. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  76. Teri, Linda, Rebecca G. Logsdon, Susan M. McCurry and Kenneth C. Pike, et al. "Translating an evidence-based multicomponent intervention for older adults with dementia and caregivers.Gerontol 60 (2020): 548-557.
  77. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  78. Brewster, Glenna S., Fayron Epps, Clinton E. Dye and Kenneth Hepburn, et al. "The effect of the “Great Village” on psychological outcomes, burden and mastery in African American caregivers of persons living with dementia."  J Appl Gerontol 39 (2020): 1059-1068.
  79. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  80. https://www.jamovi.org/
  81. https://www.gbif.org/tool/81287/r-a-language-and-environment-for-statistical-computing
  82. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/afex/index.html
  83. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html
Google Scholar citation report
Citations: 1345

Journal of Clinical Case Reports received 1345 citations as per Google Scholar report

Journal of Clinical Case Reports peer review process verified at publons

Indexed In

 
arrow_upward arrow_upward