Over the past decade, there has been substantial growth in heart failure (HF) research that focuses on persons with HF and their care partners (family members or other close friends that provide unpaid support) as an interdependent team, or care dyad. In this state-of-the-art review, we use a dyadic lens to identify and summarize current research on HF care dyads, from qualitative studies, to nonexperimental quantitative studies, to randomized controlled trials. Although much work has been done, this literature is younger and less well-developed than care dyad literatures from other conditions (eg, cancer, Alzheimer\'s disease). We discuss the substantial challenges and limitations in this body of work, with an eye toward addressing common issues that impact rigor. We also look toward future directions, and discuss the promise dyadic research holds for improving patient, care partner, and relationship health.

More than 80% of family care partners of older adults are responsible for coordinating care between and among providers; yet, their inclusion in the health care delivery process lacks recognition, coordination, and standardization. Despite efforts to include care partners (e.g., through informal or formal proxy access to their care recipient\'s patient portal), policies and procedures around care partner inclusion are complex and inconsistently implemented. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles published from 2015 to 2021 and reviewed a final sample of 45 U.S.-based studies. Few articles specifically examine the inclusion of care partners in health care teams; those that do, do not define or measure care partner inclusion in a standardized way. Efforts to consider care partners as \"partners\" rather than \"visitors\" require further consideration of how to build health care teams inclusive of care partners. Incentives for health care organizations and providers to practice inclusive team-building may be required.

Fatigue is a long-term symptom for stroke survivors. This scoping review synthesized how survivors achieve fatigue adaptation.
Four databases were searched for studies between 2012 and 2021. Qualitative studies or qualitative findings from mixed-methods studies were included if they described survivors\' experiences with fatigue and/or care partners\' experiences in helping survivors adapt to fatigue. Studies were excluded if they were poster abstracts, reviews, or editorials.
Thirty-six articles were analyzed. Survivors with fatigue described different adaptive challenges - fatigue made them less productive, brought emotional distress, and was indiscernible to others. To respond to these challenges, stroke survivors did adaptive work including conserving energy, changing mindset, and restructuring normality. Care partners, employers, and colleagues showed adaptive leadership by adjusting daily routines or role responsibilities. Most survivors described that the current clinical practice did not meet their needs to address fatigue.
Stroke survivors had many types of challenges and strategies for fatigue adaptation. Survivors received family, employer, and colleague support but how care partners help survivors develop new skills is unknown. Stroke survivors expressed that healthcare professionals need to teach survivors and care partners basic knowledge of fatigue that meet their personal needs and provide adaptive interventions for survivors. Implications for rehabilitationThe challenges of poststroke fatigue are multifaceted because fatigue influences stroke survivors\' physical, cognitive, mental, and social aspects of recovery.Stroke survivors need support from their care partners such as helping them adapt to the fatigue, adapt to new life routine, and adjust role responsibilities.Healthcare professionals, stroke survivors, and care partners need to work together to develop strategies about poststroke fatigue that meet stroke survivors\' personal needs.

OBJECTIVE: The burden on care partners, particularly once dementia emerges, is among the greatest of all caregiving groups. This meta-review aimed to (1) synthesis evidence on the self-reported needs of care partners supporting people living with neurodegenerative disorders; (2) compare the needs according to care partner and care recipient characteristics; and (3) determine the face validity of existing care partner needs assessment tools.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews involving a thematic synthesis of care partner needs and differences in needs according to demographic and other characteristics. We then conducted a gap analysis by identifying the themes of needs from existing needs assessment tools specific to dementia and cross-matching them with the needs derived from the thematic synthesis.
RESULTS: Drawing on 17 published reviews, the identified range of needs fell into four key themes: (1) knowledge and information, (2) physical, social and emotional support, (3) care partner self-care, and (4) care recipient needs. Needs may differ according to disease trajectory, relationship to the care recipient, and the demographic characteristics of the care partner and recipient. The \'captured needs\' range between 8% and 66% across all the included needs assessment tools.
CONCLUSIONS: Current tools do not fully or adequately capture the self-identified needs of care partners of people living with neurodegenerative disorders. Given the high burden on care partners, which has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 (SARS CoV-2) pandemic, the needs assessment tools should align with the self-reported needs of care partners throughout the caregiving trajectory to better understand unmet needs and target supportive interventions.

Internationally, there is a drive to involve patients and the public in health research, due to recognition that patient and public involvement (PPI) may increase the impact and relevance of health research. This scoping review describes the extent and nature of PPI in dementia research in the European Union (EU) and summarises: (i) how PPI is carried out; and (ii) the impact of PPI on people living with dementia and the public, researchers, and the research process.
Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and then filtered by two reviewers independently. Eligibility criteria for included studies were: (i) people living with dementia and/or care partners; (ii) PPI activity in dementia research conducted in the European Union (EU); and (iii) published between 2000 and 2018. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2 SF) was used to collate the data. There was no language restriction other than the abstract needed to be available in English.
We found 19 studies from the UK and one from the Netherlands meeting inclusion criteria. No studies from other EU countries met inclusion criteria. Studies reported various methods of PPI including workshops, drop-in sessions, meetings, consensus conference, reader consultation and participatory approach. The reported aims of PPI included identifying and prioritising research questions (n = 4), research design (n = 5), undertaking and managing research (n = 8), and data analysis and interpretation (n = 3). All PPI related to design and implementation of non-pharmacological studies. One study described two pharmacological studies as case studies incorporating PPI. Seventeen studies reported anecdotal impacts of PPI.
Further development of PPI in dementia research in the EU and in pharmacological dementia research is required. Given the wide range of objectives of PPI in dementia research, PPI methods should be flexible and appropriate for the research context. Researchers should also formally evaluate and report the impacts of PPI for researchers, patients and the general public using good quality research designs to foster development of the field and enable the benefits and challenges of PPI to be better understood.
PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017053260 .