Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proof-of-concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach's feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused attention on long-term care facilities' need for infection-control policies that balanced community safety and individual well-being. Infection-control policies were often developed, implemented, and mandated without the input or involvement of those who are most affected: residents and their family members, administrators, and staff. This failure led to declines in residents' physical and mental health. The pandemic exposed an opportunity-and an imperative-to reimagine long-term care in a way that is centered on the needs and preferences of those who receive care, their family members, and those who provide care. This study lays the groundwork for cultural change and a move toward inclusive policy decisionmaking in long-term care through a review of infection-control policy decisions and action items proposed in guided discussions with a diversity of stakeholders-long-term care residents, direct care staff, and consumer advocates to facility administrators, clinicians, researchers, and industry organizations. Transforming the culture of long-term care to elevate the needs of residents will require attention to facility leadership, along with steps to increase inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability in decisionmaking.

Importance Nomenclature in the field of neurodegenerative diseases presents a challenging problem. Inconsistent use of terms such as Alzheimer disease and dementia has compromised progress in clinical care, research, and development of therapeutics. Dementia-associated stigma further contributes to inconsistent and imprecise language. The result is a lack of clarity that produces confusion with patients and the general public and presents communication challenges among researchers. Therefore, the Advisory Council on Research, Care, and Services of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease authorized a committee to make recommendations for improvement. Objective To establish a systematic neurodegenerative disease framework for information collection and communication to standardize language usage for research, clinical, and public health purposes. Evidence Review The Dementia Nomenclature Initiative organized into 3 major stakeholder working groups: clinicians, researchers, and the public (including individuals living with dementia and family caregivers). To inform the work, the initiative completed a narrative literature review of dementia nomenclature evolution over the last century across the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020). Initiative working groups used the results as a foundation for understanding current challenges with dementia nomenclature and implications for research, clinical practice, and public understanding. The initiative obtained additional input via focus groups with individuals living with dementia and caregivers, with separate groups for race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) as an initial assessment of the meaning of dementia-related terms to these groups. Findings From working group deliberations, the literature review, and focus group input, the initiative developed a framework clearly separating the clinical syndromic presentation experienced by affected individuals from possible underlying pathophysiologies. In the framework, domains of clinical impairment, such as cognitive, behavioral, motor, and other neurologic features, are graded by level of impairment between none and severe. Next, biomarker information describes underlying disease processes, explains the syndrome, and identifies possible disease labels: Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, or vascular cognitive impairment dementia. Conclusions and Relevance The Dementia Nomenclature Initiative established a framework to guide communication about cognitive impairment among older adults. Wider testing and refinement of the framework will subsequently improve the information used in communicating about cognitive impairment and the way in which the information is used in clinical, research, and public settings.

Within many societies and cultures around the world, older adults are too often undervalued and underappreciated. This exacerbates many key challenges that older adults may face. It also undermines the many positive aspects of late life that are of tremendous value at both an individual and societal level. We propose a new approach to elevate health and well-being in late life by optimizing late-life Brain Capital. This form of capital prioritizes brain skills and brain health in a brain economy, which the challenges and opportunities of the 21st-century demands. This approach incorporates investing in late-life Brain Capital, developing initiatives focused on building late-life Brain Capital.

Confronting Alzheimer's disease (AD) involves patients, healthcare professionals, supportive services, caregivers, and government agencies interacting along a continuum from initial awareness to diagnosis, treatment, support, and care. This complex scope presents a challenge for health system transformation supporting individuals at risk for, or diagnosed with, AD. The AD systems preparedness framework was developed to help health systems identify specific opportunities to implement and evaluate focused improvement programs. The framework is purposely flexible to permit local adaptation across different health systems and countries. Health systems can develop solutions tailored to system-specific priorities considered within the context of the overall framework. Example metric concepts and initiatives are provided for each of ten areas of focus. Examples of funded projects focusing on screening and early detection are provided. It is our hope that stakeholders utilize the common framework to generate and share additional implementation evidence to benefit individuals with AD.

RAND working papers are intended to share researchers’ latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. This working paper has been approved for circulation by RAND Social and Economic Well-Being and completed RAND’s research quality assurance process, but it has not been formally edited or proofread. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA708-2.html

More than 46 million Americans live with a mental illness, yet only half of those Americans receive treatment. Even fewer people receive high-quality care that would give them the best treatment possible. This tool is designed by RAND researchers to help connect mental health systems, policy leaders, and decisionmakers with resources and evidence-based solutions that could help transform the complex mental health landscape in the United States.

RAND working papers are intended to share researchers’ latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. This working paper has approved for circulation by RAND Social and Economic Well-Being and completed RAND’s research quality assurance process, but it has not been formally edited or proofread. Unless otherwise indicated, working papers can be quoted and cited without permission of the author, provided the source is clearly referred to as a working paper. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsorssdfsd. R® is a registered trademark.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients’ symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item’s importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

The United States is at a time of promise for historic transformation in mental health care. This report describes the landscape of mental health in the United States and identifies opportunities for transformative change. The result is an analysis of key problems and the research evidence for solutions, with recommendations to promote change to improve the lives of the millions of Americans living with mental illness.

Purpose Results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to inform healthcare decision-making. Research has shown that response shift can impact PROM results. As part of an international collaboration, our goal is to provide a framework regarding the implications of response shift at the level of patient care (micro), healthcare institute (meso), and healthcare policy (macro). Methods Empirical evidence of response shift that can influence patients' self-reported health and preferences provided the foundation for development of the framework. Measurement validity theory, hermeneutic philosophy, and micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making informed our theoretical analysis. Results At the micro-level, patients' self-reported health needs to be interpreted via dialogue with the clinician to avoid misinterpretation of PROM data due to response shift. It is also important to consider the potential impact of response shift on study results, when these are used to support decisions. At the meso-level, individual-level data should be examined for response shift before aggregating PROM data for decision-making related to quality improvement, performance monitoring, and accreditation. At the macro-level, critical reflection on the conceptualization of health is required to know whether response shift needs to be controlled for when PROM data are used to inform healthcare coverage. Conclusion Given empirical evidence of response shift, there is a critical need for guidelines and knowledge translation to avoid potential misinterpretations of PROM results and consequential biases in decision-making. Our framework with guiding questions provides a structure for developing strategies to address potential impacts of response shift at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels.

Background The National Institute on Aging, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the National Alzheimer's Project Act, convened a 2020 National Research Summit on Care, Services, and Supports for Persons with Dementia and their Caregivers. This review article addresses research participation by persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners in two different ways: as research participants with input on outcomes studied and as engaged research partners. Results This article summarizes each of the topics presented at this Summit session, followed by reflection from the session panelists. Lee Jennings examined collection of outcomes directly from PLWD and the potential for individualized outcomes to enhance measurement in intervention trials. Ron Petersen discussed the impact of nomenclature on research and clinical care, and how and why investigators should be mindful of the connection between dementia nomenclature and the conduct of dementia research. Tabassum Majid examined strategies for engagement in research, including specific examples of involving PLWD and their care partners (including staff in assisted living and skilled nursing facilities), and the potential for this research engagement to improve our understanding of interventions in dementia. Conclusions Research participation by PLWD and their care partners is evolving. This review summarizes three areas of opportunity and steps for researchers to work with PLWD and their care partners to design and conduct research that enhances knowledge based on what we learn from PLWD and their care partners, and creates knowledge with them.

A RAND team identified three goals for transforming the U.S. mental health care system and pinpointed 15 opportunities to drive systemic improvements in access, use, and quality that would help tens of millions of Americans.

To support health care resource allocation decisionmaking during the COVID-19 crisis, the authors created the Core Guidance Checklist from a discussion process with bioethicists, health system leaders, clinicians, patient advocates, and representatives of affected communities. It is intended for use by decisionmakers within health systems, as well as state-level policymakers, to improve resource allocation policy development and implementation.

Importance International efforts are being made towards a person-centred care (PCC) model, but there are currently no standardised mechanisms to measure and monitor PCC at a healthcare system level. The use of metrics to measure PCC can help to drive the changes needed to improve the quality of healthcare that is person centred. Objective To develop and validate person-centred care quality indicators (PC-QIs) measuring PCC at a healthcare system level through a synthesis of the evidence and a person-centred consensus approach to ensure the PC-QIs reflect what matters most to people in their care. Methods Existing indicators were first identified through a scoping review of the literature and an international environmental scan. Focus group discussions with diverse patients and caregivers and interviews with clinicians and experts in quality improvement allowed us to identify gaps in current measurement of PCC and inform the development of new PC-QIs. A set of identified and newly developed PC-QIs were subsequently refined by Delphi consensus process using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. The international consensus panel consisted of patients, family members, community representatives, clinicians, researchers and healthcare quality experts. Results From an initial 39 unique evidence-based PC-QIs identified and developed, the consensus process yielded 26 final PC-QIs. These included 7 related to structure, 16 related to process, 2 related to outcome and 1 overall global PC-QI. Conclusions The final 26 evidence-based and person-informed PC-QIs can be used to measure and evaluate quality incorporating patient perspectives, empowering jurisdictions to monitor healthcare system performance and evaluate policy and practice related to PCC.

When and how to communicate effectively the results of genetic and biomarker based prediction, detection, and quantification of the brain substrates of dementia involve important ethical and legal issues critical for precision medicine. The urgency of the issue has increased as People Living with Dementia (PLwD) and with Risk for Dementia (PwRD) can access direct to consumer genetic testing, amyloid targeting drugs, and clinical amyloid PET scans. To address the need for effective dissemination and consultation, an advisory group was convened that welcomes all interested members.