Solid organ and stem cell transplant patients and their caregivers report a substantial level of distress. Mindfulness-based stress reduction has been shown to alleviate distress associated with transplant, but there is limited experience in this population with other mindfulness-based interventions, or with combined transplant patient and caregiver interventions. We evaluated a novel, 6-week mindfulness-based resilience training (MBRT) class for transplant patients and their caregivers that incorporates mindfulness practice, yoga, and neuroscience of stress and resilience. Thirty-one heart, liver, kidney/pancreas, and stem cell transplant patients and 18 caregivers at Mayo Clinic in Arizona participated. Measures of stress, resilience, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, positive and negative affect, and sleep were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months postintervention. At 6 weeks and 3 months, patients demonstrated significant (P<.005) improvements from baseline in measures of perceived stress, depression, anxiety, and negative affect. Quality-of-life mental component (P=.006) and positive affect (P=.02) also improved at follow-up. Most participants adhered to the program, were satisfied with class length and frequency, and reported improved well-being as a result of the class. MBRT holds promise as an intervention to enhance resilience and manage stress for transplant patients and their caregivers.

BackgroundCurrently, people at risk for dementia and their caregivers are confronted with confusing choices about what behavioral interventions are most effective.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to determine which empirically supported behavioral interventions most impact the outcomes highly valued by patients with mild cognitive impairment and their partners.MethodsThis protocol describes a comparative effectiveness trial targeting 300 participants with mild cognitive impairment and their study partners. The trial is being conducted at the Mayo Clinic campuses in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and the University of Washington in Seattle. The study examines the contribution of five behavioral interventions (yoga, memory compensation training, computerized cognitive training, support groups, and wellness education) on primary outcomes of participant and partner quality of life and self-efficacy. In this unique 10-day multicomponent intervention, groups of couples were randomized to have one of the five interventions withheld while receiving the other four. Although the longitudinal follow-up is still under way, enrollment results are available and reported.ResultsIn total, 272 couples have been enrolled in the trial and follow-up visits continue. Outcomes will be assessed at the end-of-intervention and 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. We anticipate reporting on our primary and secondary outcomes across time points in the next 2 years.ConclusionsThis paper describes the protocol for a randomized comparative effectiveness study of behavioral interventions to prevent or delay dementia. We describe of the rationale, design, power analysis, and analysis plan. Also because enrollment is complete and we are in follow-up phases of the study, we have included enrollment data from the trial.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02265757; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ctsshow/ NCT02265757 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ueRfwSYv)

This pilot study examined the functional impact of computerized versus compensatory calendar training in cognitive rehabilitation participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Fifty-seven participants with amnestic MCI completed randomly assigned calendar or computer training. A standard care control group was used for comparison. Measures of adherence, memory-based activities of daily living (mADLs), and self-efficacy were completed. The calendar training group demonstrated significant improvement in mADLs compared to controls, while the computer training group did not. Calendar training may be more effective in improving mADLs than computerized intervention. However, this study highlights how behavioral trials with fewer than 30–50 participants per arm are likely underpowered, resulting in seemingly null findings.

Objective To provide effect size estimates of the impact of two cognitive rehabilitation interventions provided to patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI): computerized brain fitness exercise (BF) and memory support system (MSS), on support partners' outcomes of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and partner burden. Methods Randomized controlled pilot trial. Results At 6 months, the partners from both treatment groups showed stable to improved depression scores, while partners in an untreated control group showed worsening depression over six months. There were no statistically significant differences on anxiety, quality of life or burden outcomes in this small pilot trial; however, effect sizes were moderate suggesting the sample sizes in this pilot study were not adequate to detect statistical significance. Conclusion Either form of cognitive rehabilitation may help partners' mood, compared to providing no treatment. However, effect size estimates related to other partner outcomes (i.e., burden, quality of life, anxiety) suggest follow-up efficacy trials will need sample sizes of at least 30-100 people per group to accurately determine significance.

Limited access to mental health and behavioral interventions is a public health issue that predated and is further worsened by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) social distancing restrictions. The Healthy Action to Benefit Independence and Thinking (HABIT) program is a cognitive rehabilitation and wellness program for patients with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and their partners that involves groups of up to 32 people (16 dyads) at a time. Thus, the public health recommendation to avoid groups at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic immediately impacted our ability to offer this treatment protocol. This brief report provides patient and partner satisfaction data as well as clinical outcomes with a virtual adaptation of the HABIT program developed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of their participation, patients who attended in-person sessions had an average age of 74.4 years and those who attended virtual sessions had an average age of 75.4 years ( P =.60). Both groups had an average of 16.3 years of education ( P =.95). Approximately half of the patients in both groups were male (30 of 57 [53%]), most were White (54 of 57 [95%]) and were accompanied to the program by a spouse (50 of 57 [88%]). Overall, patient and partner satisfaction with the HABIT program remained high, ranging from a mean score of 5.8 to 6.6 on a rating scale of 1 to 7 for patients and partners, and clinical outcomes remained consistent with our face-to-face formatting when compared with pre–COVID pandemic sessions. The most notable changes across both formats were improvements in patient anxiety (Cohen's d =0.25 face-to-face; d =0.39 virtual), partner anxiety ( d =0.37 face-to-face; d =0.34 virtual), and partner depression ( d =0.37 face-to-face; d =0.35 virtual). This preliminary program evaluation suggests that transitioning the HABIT program to virtual formatting provides high-quality care similar to our in-person care models. Ongoing program evaluation is planned as we continue using virtual treatment for safety. Even after COVID-19 pandemic public health restrictions are lifted, these findings will have continued relevance to ongoing demand for telehealth.