RSS Feed Print
Interview with Dr. Suarez Gonzalez, Dementia Researcher
llee08032
Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:29 AM
Joined: 5/20/2014
Posts: 4406


Interview with a Dementia Researcher: Dr. Aida Suarez Gonzalez, Clinical Neuropsychologist

What areas of research are you currently pursuing?

I am a clinical neuroscientist with a strong translational focus. I have a passion for non-pharmacological interventions and evidence-based services to help people to live well with dementia.

What are the big questions or theories currently being debated in your field?

The development of new multicomponent functional interventions in dementia (such as disease education, counselling, goal-setting, goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation, coping strategies training, etc.) is a hot topic. These interventions have the potential to increase autonomy, quality of life, and mental health in patients and families.

Another big concept is the need to develop more suitable methods to produce high quality evidence in support of non-pharmacological interventions. The traditional methods used in classic drug trials do not always makes sense when applied to non-pharmacological approaches.

I am also interested in the introduction of a new generation of purpose-built assistive technologies (such as specific communication aids, adapted e-readers, memory aids, etc.). These tools are revolutionizing the way we provide support, so people can remain independent for longer. IDEAL and GREAT are two examples of programs that support the concept of living well with dementia.

What is a common misconception related to dementia that you often encounter?

There are two big misunderstandings that particularly trouble me because they produce undesirable consequences when a diagnosis of dementia is provided.

First, we always highlight that dementia is not a natural part of aging, that it is a disease. However, we usually forget to add that this is a very common disease in old age and that we, as longer-living societies, have lived with age-related diseases for centuries (and hey, here we are after all).

I don’t mean we should belittle the seriousness of dementia, but rather encourage more acceptance and reconciliation with life and trust in the resilience of what we human beings are capable of. I think this way of thinking moves the focus from the frustration of the current absence of a treatment to reflecting on what we can do to live well with the disease. And of course this way of seeing things is not incompatible with increasing research efforts towards finding a cure.

Secondly, calling the dementias “dementias” contributes the stigma and misunderstanding of the disease. In many societies across the world, the word dementia means losing yourself, your reasoning, judgement, understanding and contact with reality. And this is not true. This is a false and unfair misconception that every day strips millions of people around the world from their social roles and right to decide about their lives, and exposes them to patronization.

Of course, advanced stages of the disease do impair your thinking skills severely, but this is not the case in the early and even moderate stages (that can last for many years) and it also depends a lot on the dementia subtype that you have. With the right support, many people with progressive cognitive impairment can lead fairly independent lives for a long time.

Look for example at the UK Network of Dementia Voices, which is a community of 100 groups of people living with dementia that seeks to magnify their own views, make their voices being heard and pressure the public administration to include their advice in matters that affect them.

The same applies to the 3 Nations Dementia Working Group, who are a powerful group of people living with dementia transforming the way we perceive dementia and progressive cognitive impairment by making an extraordinary contribution to society through education and raising awareness. They do public speaking, provide input to public policy bodies and bring value, advice and information about what is like the experience of living with dementia. They have dementiayes, and also they are inspiring, powerful and they are transforming the world.

What recommendations would you give to people wanting to reduce their risk of Alzheimer’s disease?

There is quite a lot of scientific consensus around the main preventive measures: healthy diet, good control of vascular risk factors such as cholesterol, diabetes and hypertension, regular physical exercise, remaining mentally active, and maintaining strong and good quality social bonds and social networks.

How can non-scientists contribute to the fight against Alzheimer’s?

The lay public can make a powerful contribution by trying to educate themselves about dementia, understanding better the changes experienced by a person with the disease, and committing to contribute towards a more dementia-friendly society.

For example, if you run a fruit shop in a neighborhood with an aged population, it’s very likely that some of your clients may be living with memory problems. You can seek information to educate yourself to understand better what that means and place a sign in your shop window explaining that this is a “memory problems friendly shop” and that people can come and speak to you about how to better support them to continue doing their shopping safely and independently.

When do you believe a viable Alzheimer’s treatment will be available?

I wish I had a response for that and I wish that response was “soon.” However, it is possible that we still have to live with Alzheimer’s in our lives for a long time, so I would encourage researchers and policy-makers to double efforts on finding a treatment, but also on helping us having good, purposeful, meaningful and fulfilling lives even if carrying a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s. There is a lot of life beyond the diagnosis, let’s also embrace that and make the best of it.

Is there any other information you’d like to add?

I would like to encourage other scientists to join a movement for change that focuses more on people and less on the disease, at least in the case of the diseases for which a cure has not been found yet. We hardly have any relevant tools to use in clinical studies to measure the impact of non-pharmacological interventions on people’s real lives and this needs to change. Current methods in this area are so quantitatively constrained and disease-oriented that allow little flexibility and, their resulting scientific outputs are usually difficult to translate into clinically practice.