Skip to main content
Log in

Alzheimer’s disease treatment: Assessing caregiver preferences for mode of treatment delivery

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Advances in Therapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Management of patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) can exert a substantial burden upon caregivers. As new modes of treatment administration are developed, it is important to assess caregiver satisfaction and preference in a standardized manner. This study describes the development of the Alzheimer’s Disease Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) to assess AD caregivers’ satisfaction with and preference for patch or capsule treatments in AD patients.

Methods

Twenty-five published articles (1987-2002) were reviewed to identify potential ADCPQ domains. Three caregiver focus groups (n=24) were conducted to develop a first draft of the questionnaire. After evaluating the acceptance of ADCPQ to caregivers through in-depth interviews (n=10), its psychometric properties were assessed using data from 986 patients enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, four-arm, placebo- and active-controlled, 24-week trial.

Results

Focus groups indicated that caregivers expressed dissatisfaction with current AD treatment routines including limitations related to: efficacy, administration schedule, number of pills, adherence to treatment, side effects, and taking pills. In-depth interviews with caregivers found the ADCPQ to be comprehensible with an acceptable layout. The resultant ADCPQ comprises three modules: A) baseline, 11 items assessing treatment expectations; B) week 8, 33 items on satisfaction and preferences with treatment options; C) week 24, 10 items assessing overall opinions of treatment options. Missing data per item was low (≤0.3%) and domain internal consistency reliability was good (0.71–0.91). Preference items were also valid when evaluating concordance and discordance between convenience and satisfaction patch and capsule domain scores.

Conclusion

AD treatment puts a significant strain on caregivers. New modes of treatment delivery may be less burdensome to caregivers, thereby increasing satisfaction and potential treatment adherence. The ADCPQ was well accepted by AD caregivers and its domains demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The ADCPQ is a useful tool to understand caregiver preferences for patch versus oral therapies in AD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Croog SH, Burleson JA, Sudilovsky A, Baume RM. Spouse caregivers of Alzheimer patients: problem responses to caregiver burden. Aging Ment Health. 2006;10:87–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Donaldson C, Tarrier N, Burns A. Determinants of carer stress in Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 1998;13:248–256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Takechi H, Yamada H, Sugihara Y, Kita T. Behavioral and psychological symptoms, cognitive impairment and caregiver burden related to Alzheimer’s disease patients treated in an outpatient memory clinic [in Japanese]. Nippon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi. 2006;43:207–216.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sink KM, Covinsky KE, Barnes DE. Caregiver characteristics are associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:796–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mahoney R, Regan C, Katona C. Anxiety and depression in family caregivers of people with Alzheimer disease: the LASER-AD study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;13:795–801.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims [draft guidance]. FDA web site. February 2006. Available at: www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf. Accessed June 2006.

  7. Boyd MA. Psychiatric Nursing: Contemporary Practice. 3rd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Travis SS, Kao HF, Acton GJ. Helping family members manage medication administration hassles. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2005;2005:13–15.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Slattum PW, Johnson MA. Caregiver burden in Alzheimer’s disease. Consult Pharm. 2004; 19:352–362.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Valle-Jones C, O’Hara J, O’Hara H. Comparative clinical trial of the tolerability, patient acceptability and efficacy of two transdermal glyceryl trinitrate patches (’Deponit’ 5 and ‘Transiderm-Nitro’ 5) in patients with angina pectoris. Curr Med Res Opin. 1989;11:331–339.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Allan L, Hays H, Jensen NH, et al. Randomised crossover trial of transdermal fentanyl and sustained release oral morphine for treating chronic non-cancer pain. BMJ. 2001;322:1154–1158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baker VL. Alternatives to oral estrogen replacement. Transdermal patches, percutaneous gels, vaginal creams and rings, implants, other methods of delivery. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1994;21:271–297.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Branche GCJr., Batts JM, Dowdy VM, Field LS, Francis CK. Improving compliance in an innercity hypertensive patient population. Am J Med. 1991;91:37S–41S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Burris JF, Papademetriou V, Wallin JD, Cook ME, Weidler DJ. Therapeutic adherence in the elderly: transdermal clonidine compared to oral verapamil for hypertension. Am J Med. 1991; 91:22S–28S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burris JF. The USA experience with the clonidine transdermal therapeutic system. Clin Auton Res. 1993;3:391–396.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Donner B, Zenz M. Transdermal fentanyl: a new step on the therapeutic ladder. Anticancer Drugs. 1995;6(suppl. 3):39–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeck T, Edmonds D, Mengden T, et al. Betablocking drugs in essential hypertension: transdermal bupranolol compared with oral metoprolol. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1992;12:139–148.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Parker S, Armitage M. Experience with transdermal testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadal men. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1999;50:57–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Payne R, Mathias SD, Pasta DJ, Wanke LA, Williams R, Mahmoud R. Quality of life and cancer pain: satisfaction and side effects with transdermal fentanyl versus oral morphine. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:1588–1593.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Martens M. Efficacy and tolerability of a topical NSAID patch (local action transcutaneous flurbiprofen) and oral diclofenac in the treatment of softtissue rheumatism. Clin Rheumatol. 1997;16:25–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Utian WH. Transdermal estradiol overall safety profile. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156:1335–1338.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wong JO, Chiu GL, Tsao CJ, Chang CL. Comparison of oral controlled-release morphine with transdermal fentanyl in terminal cancer pain. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin. 1997;35:25–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lake Y, Pinnock S. Improved patient acceptability with a transdermal drug-in-adhesive oestradiol patch. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;40:313–316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Riley S, Morris B, Walker L, Reese P, White L. Comparison of two transdermal nitroglycerin systems: Transderm-Nitro and Nitro-Dur. Clin Ther. 1992;14:438–445.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Radbruch L, Sabatowski R, Elsner F, Loick G, Kohnen N. Patients’ associations with regard to analgesic drugs and their forms for application — a pilot study. Support Care Cancer. 2002; 10:480–485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomez-Panzani E, Williams MB, Kuznicki JT, et al. Application and maintenance habits do make a difference in adhesion of Alora transdermal systems. Maturitas. 2000;35:57–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Reddington C, Cohen J, Baldillo A, et al. Adherence to medication regimens among children with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2000;19:1148–1153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Donner B, Zenz M, Tryba M, Strumpf M. Direct conversion from oral morphine to transdermal fentanyl: a multicenter study in patients with cancer pain. Pain. 1996;64:527–534.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ahmedzai S. New approaches to pain control in patients with cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1997; 33(suppl. 6):S8–S14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahmedzai S, Brooks D. Transdermal fentanyl versus sustained-release oral morphine in cancer pain: preference, efficacy, and quality of life. The TTS-Fentanyl Comparative Trial Group. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13:254–261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lopes P, Rozenberg S, Graaf J, Fernandez-Villoria E, Marianowski L. Aerodiol versus the transdermal route: perspectives for patient preference. Maturitas. 2001;38(suppl. 1):S31–S39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hollister L, Gruber N. Drug treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Effects on caregiver burden and patient quality of life. Drugs Aging. 1996;8:47–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Howard K, Rockwood K. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia. 1995;6:113–116.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Steele RG, Anderson B, Rindel B. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-positive children: examination of the role of caregiver health beliefs. AIDS Care. 2001;13:617–629.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Winblad B, Kawata AK, Beusterien KM. Caregiver preference for rivastigmine patch relative to capsules for treatment of probable Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;22: 485–491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Winblad B, Cummings J, Andreasen N. A 6-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of a transxdermal patch in Alzheimer’s disease — rivastigmine patch versus capsule. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007;22:456–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Glaser BG, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Oliver RL. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Marketing Res. 1980;17:460–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hays R, Hayashi T. Beyond internal consistency reliability: rationale and user’s guide for Multitrait Analysis Program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods. 1990;22:167–175.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Chapter 7: The assessment of reliability. In: Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 1994: 248–292.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, Son LH, Conant LJ. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Can they provide valid information about patients’ health status and satisfaction with medical care? Med Care. 1989;27(suppl.): S91–S98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Rofail.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abetz, L., Rofail, D., Mertzanis, P. et al. Alzheimer’s disease treatment: Assessing caregiver preferences for mode of treatment delivery. Adv Therapy 26, 627–644 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-009-0034-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-009-0034-5

Keywords

Navigation