Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Sage Choice logoLink to Sage Choice
. 2021 Jun 25;21(1):77–93. doi: 10.1177/14713012211028501

The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners

Alison Killen 1,✉, Darren Flynn 2, Nicola O’Brien 3, John-Paul Taylor 4
PMCID: PMC8721619  PMID: 34171967

Abstract

Objectives

Psychosocial support for people with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and family care partners is frequently lacking, despite the need expressed by those with lived experience. Our objective was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention designed to build coping capability.

Design

The design was non-randomised with all participants receiving the intervention.

Setting

The setting was a Memory Assessment and Management Service in the Northeast of England.

Participants

Participants comprised 19 dyads consisting of a person with DLB and a family care partner.

Intervention

The intervention was group-based, with weekly sessions attended for up to four successive weeks. It was informed by Social Cognitive Theory.

Measurements

Data were collected on recruitment, attendance and attrition, self-efficacy, mood, stress and participant experience.

Results

Recruitment was achieved with minimal attrition and three successive groups were delivered. Care partners felt more in control and able to cope in at least 3 of 13 areas with 73% feeling this way in eight or more areas. Three themes were identified from post-intervention interviews: people like us, outcomes from being a group member and intervention design.

Conclusions

A DLB-specific group intervention is acceptable to people with DLB and family care partners, and recruitment is feasible within a specialist service. Participation may enhance understanding of this condition and reduce social isolation. It may improve care partners’ coping capability particularly if targeted towards those with low prior understanding of DLB and more stress. Means of evaluating outcomes for people with DLB need further development.

Keywords: Lewy body dementia, Lewy bodies, dementia with Lewy bodies, carer support, group intervention, peer support, dementia support

Introduction

Neurodegenerative dementia is a widespread condition most commonly caused by Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The second most common cause is Lewy body dementia, which comprises dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s disease dementia. Dementia with Lewy bodies is a complex dementia, meaning that multiple investigations and erroneous initial diagnoses, often of AD or depression are not uncommon (Surendranathan et al., 2020). It affects multiple systems with symptoms such as spontaneous alterations in concentration and attention, recurrent well-formed visual hallucinations, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behaviour disorder. Other difficulties include gait changes, and autonomic dysfunction, which can lead to severe constipation, orthostatic hypotension, and urinary problems (Donaghy & McKeith, 2014). As a consequence, compared with people with AD, people with DLB have a shorter time until first hospital admission and a higher admission rate (Oesterhus et al, 2020). They experience poorer quality of life (Inskip et al., 2016), and an increased mortality risk (Price et al., 2017).

Furthermore, DLB poses substantial demands on family care partners. The hallucinations and delusions, which are typical even in the early stages are challenging, with persistent delusions commonly relating to infidelity or financial abuse (Mueller et al., 2017). As a result, care partners are themselves at increased risk of depression (Leggett et al., 2011). Compared with AD, care partner burden of people with DLB is rated 30% higher on the Relative Stress Scale (RSS) (Svendsboe et al., 2016). This may be a factor in the shorter time between diagnosis and admission to nursing home, with a mean of 663 days for people with DLB, compared with 1336 days for people with AD (Rongve et al., 2014).

The provision of post-diagnostic dementia care and support is a key priority in many countries and endorsed in the UK by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, 2020a, 2020b) and Scottish Government (2020). The NICE (England and Wales) Dementia Guidelines (2018) assert that people with dementia and their families should be offered psychoeducation and skills training, including information about their dementia subtype. However, dementia interventions typically concentrate on the most common symptomology (i.e. that associated with AD), and rarely address the symptoms of DLB. Consequently, their benefit for this population is likely to be sub-optimal (McDermott et al., 2018).

Psychosocial management of DLB symptoms is particularly important as some pharmacological solutions can lead to the worsening of other symptoms, for example, treatment options for parkinsonian motor disturbances can exacerbate psychotic symptoms (Taylor et al., 2020). A systematic review (Connors et al., 2018) noted a dearth of psychosocial interventions for people with DLB. Many also lacked a theoretical basis, prohibiting identification of the active ingredients or the opportunity for replication. Care partners can also benefit from psychosocial interventions through improvements in well-being, depression and burden (Chien et al., 2011). Dementia specific programmes for family care partners such as STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) (Livingston et al., 2013), which reduced care partners’ affective symptoms and depression have been adapted to reflect the needs of care partners supporting people with Lewy body dementia (Foley et al., 2020). Other approaches have included identifying caregiving benefits rather than focussing solely on deficit and burden (Cheng et al., 2014).

Consideration of this dyadic context of care-recipient and care partner is crucial in the context of dementia, and meta-analysis of psychosocial provision has identified the value of jointly attended interventions (Brodaty and Arasaratnam, 2012). This indicates the potential for utilising this approach in DLB, where family care partners commonly feel under-supported (Killen et al., 2016), and 86% (n = 611) feel somewhat or very isolated (Leggett et al., 2011). Given the poor public awareness of DLB (Capouch et al., 2018), opportunities to interact with others in comparable circumstances could be particularly helpful. Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) a widely applied evidence-based theory of behaviour change stresses collective agency, making it well suited to group interventions. Self-management approaches based on Social Cognitive Theory can help people understand their illness and build empowerment and coping strategies (Bandura, 1997).

The rationale for the present study was the poor prognosis of DLB (Mueller et al., 2017), and the lack of evidence-based DLB-specific interventions deliverable close to the time of diagnosis, a key stress point with a pressing need for support and information (Newbronner et al., 2013). This ‘needs gap’ was confirmed through insights gathered during consultations and engagement activities with people attending a Lewy body disease clinic, and as part of the Diamond Lewy study on the assessment and management of DLB (Thomas et al., 2018). Key support and information needs were identified from 125 responses to a national online survey hosted by the Lewy Body Society (Killen et al., 2016). Findings concurred with international studies (Zweig and Galvin, 2014); suggesting themes shared a global perspective.

Method

The study was approved by the Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee, (reference 15/NE/0391). The aim was to evaluate a co-designed, psychosocial intervention for people with DLB and family care partners. The primary objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and completion. Three secondary objectives were to:

  1. Identify the most appropriate primary outcome measure to inform a future multi-centre evaluation study.

  2. Collect preliminary data on the potential effectiveness of the intervention to change the key component of self-efficacy, a construct linked to higher self-esteem, better well-being and adaptation to chronic diseases (Bisschop et al., 2004; Karademas, 2006).

  3. Optimise the intervention content.

Participants were recruited from a specialist Lewy body disease clinic, which received referrals from across the Northeast of England. Inclusion criteria comprised a diagnosis of probable DLB made in the preceding 12 months according to the DLB Consortium consensus criteria (McKeith et al., 2017), and of which the person with DLB and their primary care partner were aware. Exclusions were people awaiting dementia related diagnostic test results, or for whom engagement with group activities would be difficult to support, for example, severe hearing impairment, insufficiently fluent English or challenging behaviour.

Design and development followed the Medical Research Council guidance for complex interventions (Craig et al., 2008). To produce an optimum package and incorporate a strong element of co-design, significant development work took place. This included home-based interviews (n = 4), a focus group with people with DLB and care partners (n = 8) and two Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) meetings. Findings, which complemented the aforementioned survey, included stakeholders’ views regarding content, format and practicalities such as accessibility. A survey of clinicians experienced in dementia (n = 7) confirmed demand, but identified two possible barriers to scalability, a lack of sufficiently knowledgeable health care professionals and deliverability in the economic climate.

Following these consultations, and with the engagement of four experts by experience in an iterative co-design process, a post-diagnostic intervention was developed theoretically informed by Social Cognitive Theory. The targeted psychological construct was self-efficacy, with the enhancement of other key constructs (self-regulation and vicarious learning) also anticipated through engagement in the intervention.

Given the pilot nature and focus on feasibility, the study was non-randomised with all participants receiving the intervention. The facilitators comprised a trainee health psychologist and research nurse, both experienced in supporting people with DLB and family care partners. The delivery site was a hospital memory clinic within the Memory Assessment and Management Service of a hospital in the Northeast of England, an easily accessible venue familiar to the attendees. Travel expenses were reimbursed.

To enable replication with fidelity, description of the intervention is based on the TIDieR (template for intervention description and replication) checklist (Hoffmann et al., 2014). The recruitment target was 18 dyads allocated by recruitment date to one of three groups for successive delivery. Groups were anticipated to be sufficiently small to encourage participation, yet large enough to maintain the benefits of social interaction, despite occasional absences. Sessions were delivered weekly over consecutive weeks with consent and assessment measures completed on arrival at session one. All participants provided written informed consent. Groups one and two comprised three sessions lasting two and a half hours. Feedback including participant interviews was then used to optimise Group three. Participants remained together throughout session one, but for subsequent sessions, people with DLB and family care partners met separately following the mid-session break. Each session concluded with 30 minutes of socialisation and individual conversations with the facilitators. Refreshments were offered on arrival and available throughout. Participants received a telephone reminder the day before each session and an intervention handbook for on-going support. Two former care partners of people with DLB observed one session and provided feedback.

The intervention content was informed by four over-arching themes:

  1. Gaining and providing social support

  2. Becoming more informed

  3. Knowing where to turn

  4. Developing or maintaining a positive outlook

Thirteen core topics identified during the development phase were addressed. These encompassed the predominant cognitive, behavioural and physical changes associated with DLB (Table 1).

Table 1.

Intervention topics.
Sleep disturbances
Managing uncertainty
Feeling part of my family/community
Medications
Feeling positive
Progression and planning
Physical changes
Research opportunities
Visual hallucinations
Fluctuations
Local support and activities
Changes in thinking and memory
Finding out how others cope
Open in a new tab

Positive strategies formed part of each session. These included gratitude diaries, benefit finding and goal setting. Topics covered separately by people with DLB included symptom management, emotional expression and ways of responding to their diagnosis. Care partners addressed disease progression, behavioural challenges and ways to cope and thrive (see Figure 1 for sample session with key active ingredients).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Sample session with key active ingredients.

Delivery modes included discussions in groups and within dyads, written expression and drawing. Skills mastery was encouraged through modelling of possible responses by facilitators and peers, with opportunities for practice. Video clips showing people with DLB and family care partners discussing successful strategies for self-management were used to prompt discussion and build self-efficacy through vicarious (observational) learning. Participants were signposted to local voluntary groups, faith groups and charities as sources of support. On-going engagement with group peers was encouraged both directly and through online or phone contact.

Assessment and evaluation were conducted using mixed methods. To meet the primary objective to assess feasibility and acceptability, recruitment and completion rates and any reasons given for attrition were recorded. Each dyad also discussed their experiences in a semi-structured, home-based interview with an intervention facilitator (AK). Interviews lasted 30–45 min and were held 4–12 weeks post-intervention. They were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and uploaded into NVivo12. Thematic analysis was based on the six-phase approach of Braun and Clarke (2006). The data were first analysed independently by a researcher (AK) and two PPIE group members (briefed and working as a pair) to search for potential themes. Transcripts were read and re-read, with similar aspects grouped under nominal headings. Initial codes were then generated, collated into initial themes and examined further. No a priori coding frame was used, although the study aims were kept in mind. Themes were compared and any disagreements discussed and resolved to create the structure of key themes and sub-themes.

To meet the secondary outcomes, participants completed pre- and post-intervention measures of self-efficacy. People with DLB completed the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995). Care partners completed two measures designed to assess self-efficacy in the context of caregiving, the Family Care Partner Self-Efficacy for Managing Dementia Scale (Fortinsky et al., 2002) and the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (Steffen et al., 2002). To identify the most appropriate primary outcome measure for future use, questionnaires were examined for missing data and any misunderstandings with the questions, and interview feedback was gathered regarding their acceptability. Participants completed a baseline depression measure (Geriatric Depression Scale GDS-15, Sheikh and Yesavage, 1986). Care partners also completed a 4-point Likert scale evaluation in which they indicated perceived changes in their capability to cope in each topic areas, and pre- and post-intervention measures of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (Cohen and Janicki-Deverts, 2012), and RSS (Greene et al., 1982). Although this was not a powered analysis, post hoc exploratory t-tests were conducted.

Optimisation to inform Group three was undertaken using interview feedback, facilitator and co-facilitator discussions and responses from the session observers. The change process gave precedent to participants’ views, and required amendments to be supported by the majority of participants who expressed a view.

Results

Primary outcome

For the primary outcome, the feasibility and acceptability of recruitment and completion, 43 dyads were identified. Of these, fifteen (35%) failed to meet the inclusion criteria, and the remaining twenty-eight (65%) were approached. Nineteen dyads (44%) agreed to participate and were allocated across three groups (see Figure 2 recruitment flow diagram). The intervention was delivered as planned. Groups one and two each comprised six dyads, and Group three comprised seven dyads. Most participants with DLB were male (M =18, F = 1). Participants with DLB had a mean age of 76 years (range 67–88); care partners’ ages were not recorded. The care partners’ relationship to the person with DLB was spouse (n = 13), daughter (n = 2) and brother (n = 1). Three dyads withdrew prior to consent due to illness. The overall attendance of consented participants was 85%, with attrition predominantly attributable to illness or apathy in the person with DLB.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Recruitment flow diagram.

Mild (n = 7) or moderate (n = 1) depression (GDS-15) was indicated in 50% of participants with DLB, and mild depression was indicated in 25% (n = 4) of care partners. Care partners’ scores on the PSS ranged from 0–29 (max 40), with 62.5% (n = 10) indicative of moderate or high levels of stress. Care partners’ scores for the RSS, ranged from 4 to 40 (max 60) with 31% (n = 5) indicative of a high risk of psychiatric morbidity.

Fifteen dyads were interviewed about their experiences. All care partners and all but one person with DLB described their participation as positive and said they would recommend the intervention to others in their situation. Three themes were identified; people like us, outcomes from being a group member and intervention design (see Supplementary Material for expansion of themes with direct quotations to highlight the participants’ voice).

People like us

Meeting others in a similar situation was frequently mentioned as highly positive. Care partners described benefiting from solidarity with others in a similar position, peer expertise and the opportunity to compare coping strategies. Several participants with DLB recalled discussions with peers around symptoms, medications and investigations. Social comparison was common and often supportive although occasionally generated negative feelings notably fear of the future.

Outcomes from being a group member

Participants identified feeling differently about their situation following the intervention. Changes were categorised into sub-themes of ‘feeling more confident to cope’ and ‘feeling more informed’. Feeling more confident to cope was predominantly referenced by care partners, but also mentioned by one person with DLB. This related to managing new symptoms, finding help and using coping strategies. The majority of participants described feeling more informed. For care partners this constituted a greater understanding of the scope of the disease and strategies for managing symptom. Some participants with DLB noted understanding what DLB was for the first time, while others understood how DLB differed from AD.

Intervention design

Sub-themes related to the intervention design comprised ‘format’, ‘resources’ and ‘barriers’. The format was highly acceptable to the majority of participants who particularly endorsed the session structure, which facilitated meeting their peers in separate groups. Intervention resources were well received, particularly the handbook, gratitude diaries and introduction to mindfulness. Barriers to participation were described infrequently and predominantly in people with DLB. They included apprehension, fatigue, dislike of group settings and physical discomfort.

Secondary outcome 1: To identify the most appropriate primary outcome measure to inform a future multi-centre evaluation study

The assessment measures were reviewed to determine their suitability including their acceptability to participants. No care partners expressed a dislike of the Family Care Partner Self-Efficacy for Managing Dementia Scale which measures certainty for being able to cope with 10 caregiving situations. Thirteen participants completed both pre- and post-intervention scales with no specific questions unanswered. Three post-intervention scales were uncompleted when the needs of the person with DLB led to the cancellation or curtailment of the appointment. Care partners found the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy difficult to use. Most struggled to express their confidence with the statements in the required percentage format with just four measures fully completed. Several care partners expressed discomfort at completing measures containing care partner burden questions whilst in close proximity to their care-recipient.

No participants with DLB expressed any dislike of the self-efficacy measure generalized self efficacy scale. The completion time was not excessive at around 10 minutes and the facilitators noted no concerns. However, many responses were highly variable, and frequently referenced activities that lacked confirmatory responses from care partners, indicating a lack of insight from people with DLB into their self-efficacy. Even with facilitator support, most were unable to identify changes over the course of the intervention.

Secondary outcome 2: To collect preliminary data on the potential effectiveness of the intervention to change self-efficacy

Care partner scores for the Family Care Partner Self-Efficacy for Managing Dementia Scale were 14–86% pre-intervention and 38–100% post-intervention. There was no significant difference between scores pre-intervention (mean ± SD: 62.00 ± 20.12) and post-intervention (62.69 ± 15.80; t(12) = −0.15, p = 0.88). However, care partners with lower pre-intervention self-efficacy demonstrated a significantly greater improvement compared to those who scored more highly (r = −0.64, p = 0.02). This included an improvement from 14% to 44% in the lowest scoring participant. Two participants who scored over 80% pre-intervention showed slightly reduced post-intervention scores. On exploratory analysis, there was a significant relationship between change in self-efficacy and PSS scores (r = 0.66, p = 0.01), with higher pre-intervention stress associated with a better response in self-efficacy. A similar relationship was noticed with the RSS, albeit not significant (r = 0.38, p = 0.21). Care partners also completed a Likert scale response to the question ‘After attending the group, how much do you feel in control of the following situations and able to understand and cope with them, or find help to manage them?’ All respondents (n = 11) stated feeling slightly or much more in control and able to cope in at least three of the 13 topic areas, with 73% stating this in eight or more areas. No care partners felt less able to cope in any topic area (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Improvements in coping capability according to topic area.

Secondary outcome 3: To optimise the intervention content

In accordance with the rationale for change, the following amendments were incorporated into Group three:

  1. A reduction in session duration from 2.5 to 2 h, and an increase from three to four sessions

The original three-session structure reflected stakeholder feedback at the planning stage regarding ease of attendance given the multiple challenges associated with DLB, and sustainability within NHS funding constraints. Interview feedback revealed some people with DLB had difficulty sustaining concentration, which necessitated shorter sessions. Increasing the number of sessions allowed delivery of the full content, and provided an additional opportunity for peer interaction.

  • 2. A timetabled opportunity for participants to share their stories

Many people had experienced difficult and prolonged journeys through the diagnostic pathway. The facilitators observed these stories being shared as people introduced themselves. Embedding this into the content increased participants’ familiarity with one another. It formed a cathartic beginning and enabled greater engagement with subsequent elements of the intervention.

  • 3. A shorter interval between attending and evaluation

Conducting the evaluation interview after 12 weeks caused people with DLB some difficulty in remembering details with clarity, reducing this to four weeks enabled greater recall.

  • 4. Increased recruitment by one dyad

Following the withdrawal of three dyads prior to consent in earlier groups, recruiting an additional dyad aimed to maintain sufficient group size for participants to benefit from peer support.

Following Group three, two further amendments were identified for incorporation into future deliveries: firstly, home completion of the care partners’ outcome measures to resolve their concerns about completing them seated beside their care-recipient; secondly, obtaining a recent cognitive score from referring clinicians (i.e. MMSE) to increase group cohesiveness by grouping participants with similar levels of impairment.

Discussion

This study describes the first multi-component intervention designed to meet the specific psychosocial needs of people with DLB and family care partners. The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention for people with DLB and family care partners. The feasibility of delivery within a specialist Lewy body disease service was confirmed through recruitment of the planned sample, and delivery of the intervention to 16 person with DLB and family care partner dyads with minimal attrition of consented participants. Proof of concept was confirmed through positive evaluations. These included rare insights into the views of people with DLB alongside the essential but more typically obtained, care partner perspective.

Acceptability was demonstrated by both people with DLB and care partners who overwhelmingly stated having enjoyed attending and chose to attend subsequent sessions.

The high level of acceptability may reflect the DLB-focussed content, which included disease specific information and strategies to address typical symptoms such as visual hallucinations, sleep disorders and commonly experienced neuropsychiatric features. For example, significantly more depressive symptoms typically occur in people with DLB (73%) compared with AD (56%) (Fritze et al., 2011), such that depression is a supportive clinical feature (McKeith et al. 2017). To reflect this, participants were introduced to strategies engendering a positive outlook such as gratitude diaries (Killen and Macaskill, 2015). Apathy is commonly experienced in DLB, and may impair engagement with treatment (Mueller et al., 2018). In response, participants explored mentally stimulating activities, and opportunities to be physically active within their physical limitations, were signposted to local opportunities for social interaction tailored to their interests, and supported to set attainable activity goals.

The intervention was anticipated to improve self-efficacy through being theoretically informed by Social Cognitive Theory. Whilst all care partners identified an increased ability to cope in a number of areas, the post hoc analysis generated a hypothesis that care partners with lower pre-intervention self-efficacy and higher perceived stress demonstrate a significantly better increase in self-efficacy compared to those with higher self-efficacy and lower perceived stress. This differential effect is worthy of future testing in a larger, powered study. It may indicate that the intervention improves coping capability particularly if targeted towards care partners who have the most to gain, those with low prior understanding of the condition and potentially more stress. Conversely, the reduction in self-efficacy scores noted in care partners with particularly high pre-intervention scores may reflect new concerns about the future, generated through meeting peers coping with difficulties not previously encountered. Although these care partners did also identify their increased ability to cope in a number of areas, these findings highlight the challenging task of preparing care partners and people with DLB to plan for future needs without overwhelming them. Improved access to health practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of DLB is key in building confidence that support and information will be readily accessible as future challenges occur.

Whilst many care partners, particularly those lower in pre-intervention self-efficacy showed increased self-efficacy, following their participation, a reduction in RSS scores was less evident. However, interview analysis demonstrated that many care partners’ experienced changes in their attitudes and feelings, and their understanding about DLB (see Supplementary Material). This provides further evidence of their increased coping capability. It suggests that despite recognising their continuing high levels of caregiving stress, perhaps due to the uncertain day to day variability and fast progressing nature of this condition, care partners felt better equipped to manage. It also highlights the importance of evaluating multi-component interventions using a range of approaches, and further qualitative research in this area is recommended.

While multi-component support interventions improve care partner well-being in the wider population with dementia, the factors mediating this are unclear, particularly as outcomes are evaluated more positively when analysed qualitatively than on using quantitative measures (Dam et al., 2016). The current study supports these findings. A range of self-efficacy scores were evidenced, despite the high level of positive qualitative feedback, alongside all participants referencing being more able to cope in at least three topic areas thus by extension indicating increased self-efficacy. This may reflect the enhancement of a number of constructs, perhaps suggesting the need to measure additional constructs, for example resilience or social support. Although social support is a multi-dimensional concept consisting of structural, functional and evaluative aspects with little consensus which social support measures are most applicable for older adults (Dam et al., 2016), the intervention delivered social support both through participation and as a potential future resource through the exchange of contact details with peers, and information regarding community provision. Providing a safe and supportive environment with reinforcement of care partners existing capabilities, and opportunities to learn vicariously (observation/interaction) from similar others, may also have developed positive outcome expectations when dealing with current or anticipating future challenges. This may have had a role in alleviating caregiving stress, an issue widely acknowledged, and confirmed by the current study where 63% of care partners reported moderate or high stress.

While the support care partners derived from their peers supports existing evidence (Keyes et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2018), people with DLB also greatly valued their first opportunity to meet similarly placed others. This supports findings that established support groups are often not particularly relevant to people with rarer dementias owing to significant differences in age, life situations and symptoms (Brotherhood et al., 2019). In addition, care partners can misconstrue the values and preferences of people with dementia in relation to autonomy and underestimate their decision-making ability (Reamy et al., 2011), despite many developing their own coping strategies based on behavioural and cognitive techniques, which they can find it empowering to share (Collerton and Dudley, 2004; Diederich et al., 2003). The modelling of peers in the current study successfully addressing common DLB challenges including excessive daytime sleepiness and identifying misperceptions may have increased others’ self-belief in their own capability. As people with DLB generally retain insight into their condition for longer compared with people with AD (Zweig and Galvin, 2014), this may have increased their likelihood of engagement with, and benefit from the group activities. Further benefit may have resulted from promoting a strong social element of universality of experience with problems being similar to others rather than unique (Yalom and Leszcz, 2005).

The positive perspective of activities such as goal setting encouraged participants with DLB to maintain activity and identify personal strengths. This supports previous findings identifying the benefits of embracing strengths and focussing on activity (Mountain, 2006). The opportunity to plan pleasant events and share successes may have provided a welcome change in emphasis for people with DLB compared to the passivity of receiving assistance for activities once easily conducted and the potentially distressing recounting of their difficulties to health and social care professionals.

The separately facilitated provision, which enabled conversations that could be difficult with the other member of the dyad present, did not solely benefit care partners. Assumptions may be made regarding how people with DLB are impacted for example suggesting particular symptoms such as visual hallucinations are distressing, when these may actually be more problematic to care partners (Barnes et al., 2013). Time apart provided a novel opportunity for people with DLB to identify their own key concerns. These included needing additional time to respond to questions, difficulties participating in family conversations, and uncertainty over the veracity of unpleasant vivid dreams. Through an emotional expression activity, they shared feelings of embarrassment at asking for help, anger over having their driving licenses removed, frustrations when family members completed their sentences and distress at feeling a burden. People with dementia may perceive themselves (or be perceived) as no longer able to contribute to society in a meaningful way (Moyle et al., 2010). Exploring solutions together and having concerns and feelings validated by their peers could help address the previously discussed poorer quality of life in this population (Figari-Jordan et al., 2012).

The limitations to generalisability inherent in conducting this development study in a region where DLB is well recognised and specialist services are in place are acknowledged. However, although specialist DLB services are sparse, only being accessible to an estimated 5% of people with DLB within United Kingdom (UK) memory services, this may expand with the cohort anticipated to increase following the recently developed DLB assessment and management toolkits (Thomas et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2020). We would argue that a bespoke intervention is therefore possible within routine services. A typical memory clinic seeing 500 patients a year might expect to diagnose 20–30 people with DLB, which would enable delivery of four to five groups per year. Such numbers are sufficient to indicate a need, but not too overwhelming to be embedded into the programmes of psychosocial activities typically run in memory clinics, and which predominantly cater for people with AD.

People with DLB were unable to complete the self-efficacy measure selected for the current study and new measures of this construct may need developing for people with dementia (Moniz-Cook et al., 2008). However, this may not be the most appropriate evaluative tool. Øksnebjerg et al., (2018) suggest that greater use of ‘in the moment’ evaluations better reflect the beliefs of people with dementia that recording outcomes and reactions during and at the end of activities are the most authentic, most accurately reflect what they think and feel, and are easiest to manage. In the current study, people with DLB responded verbally and through affirmative gestures. Body language and reactions could be used as measures of engagement by session observers with checklists. Methodology could also include audio recording.

This study demonstrates that a theory and evidence-based psychosocial intervention uniquely focussed on DLB can be recruited to and delivered within specialist services, and is acceptable to people with DLB and family care partners. It has generated hypotheses about the potential effectiveness and mode of action of the intervention that warrant further attention. Directions for future research include the design of an intervention workshop to support delivery by health care professionals in generalist memory services. This would enable a large scale study of effectiveness to be conducted with control group comparison, and the identification of additional constructs contributing to the positive evaluations. Provision of this brief, intervention in the early stages of this complex disease could mitigate some of the difficulties, which generally increase as the condition progresses, facilitating adjustment to the diagnosis, and enabling people to seek out appropriate services and benefit from effective coping strategies, including peer support.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-dem-10.1177_14713012211028501 – Supplemental Material for The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners
Click here for additional data file. (309.1KB, pdf)

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-dem-10.1177_14713012211028501 for The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners by Alison Killen, Darren Flynn, Nicola O’Brien and John-Paul Taylor in Dementia

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from The Lewy Body Society and the contribution of SB, research nurse in co-facilitating the intervention, and the study PPIE group at all stages of this study.

Biography

Alison Killen is a chartered health psychologist and practitioner psychologist. She conducts research with people who have neurodegenerative conditions including dementia, with a particular focus on public and patient involvement. She has experience in designing and delivering psychosocial support for people with dementia and their care partners and neuropsychological testing.

Darren Flynn is a chartered psychologist and practitioner health psychologist. He has extensive experience of providing health psychology input and leadership to research, with expertise in primary, mixed methods and multi-disciplinary applied and translational research in a variety of contexts for a range of clinical conditions. This includes complex systematic reviews, and delivery of training to medical and allied health professionals on how to motivate their patients to engage in health and lifestyle behaviour change.

Nicola O’Brien is a chartered health psychologist and registered practitioner psychologist. Her research focuses on developing and evaluating complex interventions that are designed to make a demonstrable contribution to the promotion of individual and population health. She has particular expertise in the development of physical activity interventions for primary and secondary prevention of chronic conditions.

John-Paul Taylor is a leading academic expert in dementia with Lewy bodies. His research focuses on the application of neuroimaging and neurophysiological approaches in understanding symptom aetiology in Lewy body dementia. As a clinician, he leads one of very few specialist clinics for people with Lewy body disease within the UK. He has led on and successfully delivered a wide range of dementia and DLB research studies and drug trials.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work was supported by the Lewy Body Society grant no. BH164632 and NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) is a partnership between Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This paper presents independent research supported by the NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Supplementary Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Contributor Information

Alison Killen, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Darren Flynn, School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.

Nicola O’Brien, Department of Psychology, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK.

John-Paul Taylor, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

ORCID iD

Alison Killen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2020-5981

References

  1. Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action : A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy : The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes J., Connelly V., Boubert L., Maravic K. (2013). Behavioural coping patterns in Parkinson's patients with visual hallucinations. Journal of Neuropsychology, 7(2), 326-334. doi: 10.1111/jnp.12016 10.1111/jnp.12016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bisschop M. I., Kriegsman D. M. W., Beekman A. T. F., Deeg D. J. H. (2004). Chronic diseases and depression: the modifying role of psychosocial resources. Social Science & Medicine, 59(4), 721-733. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.11.038 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.11.038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brodaty H., Arasaratnam C. (2012). Meta-analysis of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(9), 946-953. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11101529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brotherhood E. V., Stott J., Windle G., Barker S., Culley S., Harding E., Camic P. M., Caufield M., Ezeofor V., Hoare Z., McKee-Jackson R., Roberts J., Sharp R., Suarez-Gonzalez A., Sullivan M. P., Tudor Edwards R., Walton J., Waddington C., Winrow E., Crutch S. J. (2019). Protocol for the rare dementia support impact study: RDS impact. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 35(8), 833-841. doi: 10.1002/gps.525 10.1002/gps.525 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Capouch S. D., Farlow M. R., Brosch J. R. (2018). A review of dementia with Lewy bodies’ impact, diagnostic criteria and treatment. Neurology and Therapy, 7, 249-263. doi: 10.1007/s40120-018-0104-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheng S.-T., Lau R. W. L., Mak E. P. M., Ng N. S. S., Lam L. C. W., Meeks S. (2014). Benefit-finding intervention for Alzheimer caregivers: Conceptual framework, implementation issues, and preliminary efficacy. The Gerontologist, 54(6), 1049-1058. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu018 10.1093/geront/gnu018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chien L.-Y., Chu H., Guo J.-L., Liao Y.-M., Chang L.-I., Chen C.-H., Chou K.-R. (2011). Caregiver support groups in patients with dementia: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 26(10), 1089-1098. doi: 10.1002/gps.2660 10.1002/gps.2660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cohen S., Janicki-Deverts D. (2012). Who’s stressed? Distributions of psychological stress in the United States in probability samples from 1983, 2006, and 2009. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1320-1334. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00900.x 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00900.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Collerton D., Dudley R. (2004). A cognitive behavioural framework for the treatment of distressing visual hallucinations in older people. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 32(4), 443-455. doi: 10.1017/S1352465804001626 10.1017/S1352465804001626 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Connors M. H., Quinto L., McKeith I., Brodaty H., Allan L., Bamford C., Thomas A., Taylor J.-P., O’Brien J. T. (2018). Non-pharmacological interventions for Lewy body dementia: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 48(11), 1749-1758. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717003257 10.1017/S0033291717003257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Craig P., Dieppe P., Macintyre S., Michie S., Nazareth I., Petticrew M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new medical research council guidance. BMJ, 337, a1655. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dam A. E. H., De Vugt M. E., Klinkenberg I. P. M., Verhey F. R. J., Van Boxtel M. P. J. (2016). A systematic review of social support interventions for care partners of people with dementia: Are they doing what they promise? Maturitas, 85, 117-130. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.12.008 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.12.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Diederich N. J., Pieri V., Goetz C. G. (2003). Coping strategies for visual hallucinations in parkinson’s disease. Movement Disorders, 18, 831-832. doi: 10.1002/mds.10450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Donaghy P. C., McKeith I. G. (2014). The clinical characteristics of dementia with Lewy bodies and a consideration of prodromal diagnosis. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, 6, 46. doi: 10.1186/alzrt274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Foley J. A., Dore C., Zarkali A., Livingston G., Cipolotti L., Mummery C. J., Weil R. S. (2020). Evaluation of START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) adapted for carers of people with Lewy body dementia. Future Healthcare Journal, 7(3), e27-e29. doi: 10.7861/fhj.2020-0003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fortinsky R. H., Kercher K., Burant C. J. (2002). Measurement and correlates of family caregiver self-efficacy for managing dementia. Aging & Mental Health, 6, 153-160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fritze F., Ehrt U., Hortobagyi T., Ballard C., Aarsland D. (2011). Depressive symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease and Lewy body dementia: A one-year follow-up study. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 32, 143-149. doi: 10.1159/000332016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Greene J. G., Smith R., Gardiner M., Timbury G. C. (1982). Measuring behavioural disturbance of elderly demented patients in the community and its effects on relatives: A factor analytic study. Age and Ageing, 11, 121-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoffmann T. C., Glasziou P. P., Boutron I., Milne R., Perera R., Moher D., Altman D. G., Barbour V., Macdonald H., Johnston M., Lamb S. E., Dixon-Woods M., McCulloch P., Wyatt J. C., Chan A. W., Michie S. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 348, g1687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687 10.1136/bmj.g1687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Inskip M., Mavros Y., Sachdev P. S., Fiatarone Singh M. A. (2016). Exercise for individuals with Lewy body dementia: A systematic review. PLoS One, 11(6), e0156520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156520 10.1371/journal.pone.0156520 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Karademas E. C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1281-1290. [Google Scholar]
  25. Keyes S. E., Clarke C. L., Wilkinson H., Alexjuk E. J., Wilcockson J., Robinson L., Reynolds J., McClelland S., Corner L., Cattan M. (2016). “We’re all thrown in the same boat … ”: A qualitative analysis of peer support in dementia care. Dementia, 15(4), 560-577. doi: 10.1177/1471301214529575 10.1177/1471301214529575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Killen A., Flynn D., De Brún A., O’Brien N., O’Brien J., Thomas A. J., McKeith I., Taylor J.-P. (2016). Support and information needs following a diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(3), 495-501. doi: 10.1017/S1041610215001362 10.1017/S1041610215001362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Killen A., Macaskill A. (2015). Using a gratitude intervention to enhance well-being in older adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16, 947-964. doi: 10.1007/s10902-014-9542-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leggett A. N., Zarit S., Taylor A., Galvin J. E. (2011). Stress and burden among caregivers of patients with Lewy body dementia. The Gerontologist, 51, 76-85. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Livingston G., Barber J., Rapaport P., Knapp M., Griffin M., King D., Livingston D., Mummery C., Walker Z., Hoe J., Sampson E. L., Cooper C. (2013). Clinical effectiveness of a manual based coping strategy programme (START, STrAtegies for RelaTives) in promoting the mental health of carers of family members with dementia: Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 347(2), f6276. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6276 10.1136/bmj.f6276 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McDermott O., Charlesworth G., Hogervorst E., Stoner C., Moniz-Cook E., Spector A., Csipke E., Orrell M. (2018). Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: A synthesis of systematic reviews. Aging & Mental Health, 23(4), 393-403. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1423031 10.1080/13607863.2017.1423031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. McKeith I. G., Boeve B. F., Dickson D. W., Halliday G., Taylor J.-P., Weintraub D., Aarsland D., Galvin J., Attems J., Ballard C. G., Bayston A., Beach T. G., Blanc F., Bohnen N., Bonanni L., Bras J., Brundin P., Burn D., Chen-Plotkin A., Kosaka K. (2017). Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies. Neurology, 89(1), 88-100. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004058 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moniz-Cook E., Vernooij-Dassen M., Woods R., Verhey F., Chattat R., Vugt M. D., Mountain G., O’connell M., Harrison J., Vasse E., Dröes R. M., For The Interdem Group (2008). A European consensus on outcome measures for psychosocial intervention research in dementia care. Aging & Mental Health, 12(1), 14-29. doi: 10.1080/13607860801919850 10.1080/13607860801919850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mountain G. A. (2006). Self-management for people with early dementia: An exploration of concepts and supporting evidence. Dementia, 5, 429-446. [Google Scholar]
  34. Moyle W., Clarke C., Gracia N., Reed J., Cook G., Klein B., Marais S., Richardson E. (2010). Older people maintaining mental health well-being through resilience: An appreciative inquiry study in four countries. Journal of Nursing and Healthcare of Chronic Illness, 2(2), 113-121. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-9824.2010.01050.x 10.1111/j.1752-9824.2010.01050.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mueller C., Ballard C., Corbett A., Aarsland D. (2017). The prognosis of dementia with Lewy bodies. Lancet Neurology, 16, 390-398. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30074-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mueller C., Rajkumar A. P., Wan Y. M., Velayudhan L., Ffytche D., Chaudhuri K. R., Aarsland D. (2018). Assessment and management of neuropsychiatric symptoms in parkinson’s disease. CNS Drugs, 32(7), 621-635. doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0540-6 10.1007/s40263-018-0540-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2020. a). Dementia (QS 184). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs184. [Google Scholar]
  38. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2020. b). Dementia: Assessment, management and support for people living with dementia and their carers (NG97). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng97/chapter/Recommendations#supportingcarers. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Newbronner L., Chamberlain R., Borthwick R., Baxter M., Glendinning C. (2013). A road less rocky: Supporting carers of people with dementia. London: Carers Trust. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oesterhus R., Dalen I., Bergland A. K., Aarsland D., Kjosavik S. R. (2020). Risk of hospitalization in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and Lewy body dementia: Time to and length of stay. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 74(4), 1221-1230. doi: 10.3233/JAD-191141 10.3233/JAD-191141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Øksnebjerg L., Diaz-Ponce A., Gove D., Moniz-Cook E., Mountain G., Chattat R., Woods B. (2018). Towards capturing meaningful outcomes for people with dementia in psychosocial intervention research: A pan-European consultation. Health Expectations, 21(6), 1056-1065. doi: 10.1111/hex.12799 10.1111/hex.12799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Price A., Farooq R., Yuan J.-M., Menon V. B., Cardinal R. N., O’Brien J. T. (2017). Mortality in dementia with Lewy bodies compared with Alzheimer’s dementia: A retrospective naturalistic cohort study. BMJ Open, 7(11), e017504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Reamy A.M., Kim K., Zarit S.H., Whitlatch C.J. (2011). Understanding discrepancy in perceptions of values: Individuals with mild to moderate dementia and their family care partners. Gerontologist, 51, 475-483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rongve A., Vossius C., Nore S., Testad I., Aarsland D. (2014). Time until nursing home admission in people with mild dementia: Comparison of dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 29, 392-398. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Schwarzer R., Jerusalem M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman J., Wright S., Johnston M. (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson. [Google Scholar]
  46. Scottish Government (2020). Scotland’s national dementia strategy 2017-2020. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-national-dementia-strategy-2017-2020/. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sheikh J.A., Yesavage J.A. (1986). Geriatric depression scale (GDS). Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. In Brink T.L. (Ed.), Clinical gerontology: A guide to assessment and intervention (pp. 165-173). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  48. Smith R., Drennan V., Mackenzie A., Greenwood N. (2018). The impact of befriending and peer support on family carers of people living with dementia: A mixed methods study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 76, 188-195. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2018.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Steffen A. M., McKibbin C., Zeiss A. M., Gallagher-Thompson D., Bandura A. (2002). The revised scale for caregiving self-efficacy: Reliability and validity studies. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 57, P74-P86. doi: 10.1093/geronb/57.1.P74 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Surendranathan A., Kane J. P. M., Bentley A., Barker S. A. H., Taylor J.-P., Thomas A. J., Allan L. M., McNally R. J., James P. W., McKeith I. G., Burn D. J., O’Brien J. T. (2020). Clinical diagnosis of Lewy body dementia. BJPsych Open, 6(4), e61. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2020.44 10.1192/bjo.2020.44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Svendsboe E., Terum T., Testad I., Aarsland D., Ulstein I., Corbett A., Rongve A. (2016). Caregiver burden in family carers of people with dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer’s disease. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 31(9), 1075-1083. doi: 10.1002/gps.4433 10.1002/gps.4433 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Taylor J.-P., McKeith I. G., Burn D. J., Boeve B. F., Weintraub D., Bamford C., Allan L. M., Thomas A. J., Allan L. M., Thomas A. J., O’Brien J. T. (2020). New evidence on the management of Lewy body dementia. Lancet Neurology, 19(2), 157-169. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30153-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Thomas A. J., Taylor J. P., McKeith I., Bamford C., Burn D., Allan L., O’Brien J. (2018). Revision of assessment toolkits for improving the diagnosis of Lewy body dementia: The DIAMOND Lewy study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33(10), 1293-1304. doi: 10.1002/gps.4948 10.1002/gps.4948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yalom I. D., Leszcz M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zweig Y. R., Galvin J. E. (2014). Lewy body dementia: the impact on patients and caregivers. Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, 6, 21. doi: 10.1186/alzrt251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

sj-pdf-1-dem-10.1177_14713012211028501 – Supplemental Material for The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners
Click here for additional data file. (309.1KB, pdf)

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-dem-10.1177_14713012211028501 for The feasibility and acceptability of a psychosocial intervention to support people with dementia with Lewy bodies and family care partners by Alison Killen, Darren Flynn, Nicola O’Brien and John-Paul Taylor in Dementia

Articles from Dementia (London, England) are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES