Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) affect persons living with dementia (PLWD) and care partners, often disrupting emotional well-being and relationship dynamics. Despite growing evidence of dyadic interdependence in dementia care, most psychosocial interventions remain individually focused, missing an opportunity to improve relational and health outcomes. Dyadic dementia interventions (DDIs) aim to support both members of the dyad through shared communication, coping, and mutual support. The primary objective of this review is to introduce the guiding principles of the CONFIDE-ADRD Roybal Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, as these provide a useful roadmap for advancing scalable, theory driven, and person-centered DDIs. We explore the promise and challenges of DDIs, including inconsistent application of theory, measurement difficulties, and barriers to recruiting dyads from a broad range of populations with disparities. Drawing from chronic illness models and dementia-specific programs, we propose a roadmap for building scalable, theory-driven DDIs grounded in mechanistic science. We introduce CONFIDE-ADRD as a national initiative providing funding, training, and expert consultation to accelerate DDI development. The Center's 14 guiding principles support person-centered, context-sensitive intervention design that targets both individual and relational mechanisms of change. As dementia care becomes increasingly relational and dynamic, robust dyadic approaches are critical to reducing care burden, strengthening relationships, and improving outcomes for both PLWD and care partners. Readers are encouraged to engage with CONFIDE-ADRD's resources and contribute to the advancement of dyadic dementia care research.
LyonsKSZajackAGreerM, et al.Benefits of a self-management program for the couple living with Parkinson’s disease: a pilot study. J Appl Gerontol2021; 40: 881–889.
2.
WilsonSJNovakJRYorgasonJB, et al.New opportunities for advancing dyadic health science in gerontology. Gerontologist2024; 64: gnac187.
3.
LyonsKSLeeCS. The theory of dyadic illness management. J Fam Nurs2018; 24: 8–28.
4.
MartireLMSchulzRHelgesonVS, et al.Review and meta-analysis of couple-oriented interventions for chronic illness. Ann Behav Med2010; 40: 325–342.
5.
BadrHBakhshaieJChhabriaK. Dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers: state of the science and new directions. Semin Oncol Nurs2019; 35: 337–341.
6.
BakasTMcCarthyMJMillerEL. Systematic review of the evidence for stroke family caregiver and dyad interventions. Stroke2022; 53: 2093–2102.
7.
BuckHGStrombergAChungML, et al.A systematic review of heart failure dyadic self-care interventions focusing on intervention components, contexts, and outcomes. Int J Nurs Stud2018; 77: 232–242.
8.
BalvertSCEDel SordoGCMildersMV. The efficacy of dyadic interventions for community-dwelling people with dementia and their caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev2024; 96: 102258.
9.
GhoshMDunhamMO’ConnellB. Systematic review of dyadic psychoeducational programs for persons with dementia and their family caregivers. J Clin Nurs2023; 32: 4228–4248.
10.
LaverKDyerSWhiteheadC, et al.Interventions to delay functional decline in people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open2016; 6: e010767.
11.
PoonE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of dyadic psychological interventions for BPSD, quality of life and/or caregiver burden in dementia or MCI. Clin Gerontol2022; 45: 777–797.
12.
Van’t LevenNPrickA-EJCGroenewoudJG, et al.Dyadic interventions for community-dwelling people with dementia and their family caregivers: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr2013; 25: 1581–1603.
13.
Di MaioSVillingerKKnollN, et al.Compendium of dyadic intervention techniques (DITs) to change health behaviours: a systematic review. Health Psychol Rev2024; 18: 538–573.
14.
WolffJLBengeJFCasselCK, et al.Emerging topics in dementia care and services. J Am Geriatr Soc2021; 69: 1763–1773.
15.
PillemerKSuitorJJ. Making choices: a within-family study of caregiver selection. Gerontologist2006; 46: 439–448.
16.
PlysESzaparyCLVranceanuA-M. Flexibly incorporating the dyad into psychosocial intervention: considerations for neuropalliative care. Semin Neurol2024; 44: 559–566.
17.
BannonSMGrunbergVAManglaniHR, et al.Together from the start: a transdiagnostic framework for early dyadic interventions for neurodegenerative diseases. J Am Geriatr Soc2022; 70: 1850–1862.
18.
MartinMPeter-WightMBraunM, et al.The 3-phase-model of dyadic adaptation to dementia: why it might sometimes be better to be worse. Eur J Ageing2009; 6: 291.
19.
OnkenLS. History and evolution of the NIH stage model: overcoming hurdles to create behavioral interventions to improve the public health. In: Evidence-based practice in action: bridging clinical science and intervention. New York: The Guilford Press, 2019, pp.28–42.
20.
VranceanuA-MKronishIMPlysE, et al.The NIH stage model for behavioral interventions in aging: development, maturation, impact and opportunities for advancement. Gerontologist2025; 65: gnaf123.
21.
BirkJLOttoMWCorneliusT, et al.Improving the rigor of mechanistic behavioral science: the introduction of the checklist for investigating mechanisms in behavior-change research (CLIMBR). Behav Ther2023; 54: 708–713.
22.
Riddle M and. Science of behavior change working group. News from the NIH: using an experimental medicine approach to facilitate translational research. Transl Behav Med2015; 5: 486–488.
23.
SumnerJACareyRNMichieS, et al.Using rigorous methods to advance behaviour change science. Nat Hum Behav2018; 2: 797–799.
24.
VranceanuAMOkerekeO. MassaChusetts General HOspital Roybal CeNter For BehavIoral Dyadic ResEarch in Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias, https://mghconfide.org/ (2024).
25.
QuinnCDunbarSBClarkPC, et al.Challenges and strategies of dyad research: cardiovascular examples. Appl Nurs Res2010; 23: e15–e20.
26.
HampsonCMorrisK. Research into the experience of dementia: methodological and ethical challenges. J Soc Sci Human2018; 1: 15–19.
RigbyTAshwillRTJohnsonDK, et al.Differences in the experience of caregiving between spouse and adult child caregivers in dementia with Lewy bodies. Innov Aging2019; 3: igz027.
29.
KinALGriffithLEKuspinarA, et al.Impact of care–recipient relationship type on quality of life in caregivers of older adults with dementia over time. Age Ageing2024; 53: afae128.
ShiuCMuracoAFredriksen-GoldsenK. Invisible care: friend and partner care among older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults. J Soc Soc Work Res2016; 7: 527–546.
32.
FreedmanVAAgreeEMSeltzerJA, et al.The changing demography of late-life family caregiving: a research agenda to understand future care networks for an aging U. S. Population. Gerontologist2024; 64: gnad036.
HellströmINolanMNordenfeltL, et al.Ethical and methodological issues in interviewing persons with dementia. Nurs Ethics2007; 14: 608–619.
35.
WilsonRSSytsmaJBarnesLL, et al.Anosognosia in dementia. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep2016; 16: 77.
36.
OromHAllardNC. Information avoidance is associated with lower willingness to be screened for dementia. J Alzheimers Dis. Epub ahead of print 10 September 2025. DOI: 10.1177/13872877251376720.
37.
RoggeRDCobbRJStoryLB, et al.Recruitment and selection of couples for intervention research: achieving developmental homogeneity at the cost of demographic diversity. J Consult Clin Psychol2006; 74: 777–784.
38.
RitchieCWTerreraGMQuinnTJ. Dementia trials and dementia tribulations: methodological and analytical challenges in dementia research. Alzheimers Res Ther2015; 7: 31.
39.
GrillJDKarlawishJ. Addressing the challenges to successful recruitment and retention in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Res Ther2010; 2: 34.
40.
RigattiMDeGurianAAAlbertSM. “Getting there”: transportation as a barrier to research participation among older adults. J Appl Gerontol2022; 41: 1321–1328.
41.
Orsulic-JerasSWhitlatchCJPowersSM, et al.A dyadic perspective on assessment in Alzheimer’s dementia: supporting both care partners across the disease continuum. Alzheimers Dement (N Y)2020; 6: e12037.
42.
BentvelzenAAertsLSeeherK, et al.A comprehensive review of the quality and feasibility of dementia assessment measures: the dementia outcomes measurement suite. J Am Med Dir Assoc2017; 18: 826–837.
43.
KramerJMSchwartzA. Reducing barriers to patient-reported outcome measures for people with cognitive impairments. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2017; 98: 1705–1715.
44.
VolicerLVan Der SteenJT. Outcome measures for dementia in the advanced stage and at the end of life. Adv Geriatr2014; 2014: 1–10.
45.
HansonLCWessellKMeeksN, et al.Selecting outcomes for pragmatic clinical trials in dementia care: the IMPACT Collaboratory iLibrary. J Am Geriatr Soc2024; 72: 529–535.
46.
IidaMSeidmanGShroutPE. Models of interdependent individuals versus dyadic processes in relationship research. J Soc Pers Relatsh2018; 35: 59–88.
47.
LedermannTKennyDA. The common fate model for dyadic data: variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. J Fam Psychol2012; 26: 140–148.
48.
BraunMScholzUBaileyB, et al.Dementia caregiving in spousal relationships: a dyadic perspective. Aging Ment Health2009; 13: 426–436.
49.
EriksenSHelvikA-SJuvetLK, et al.The experience of relations in persons with dementia: a systematic meta-synthesis. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord2016; 42: 342–368.
50.
StedjeKKvammeTKJohanssonK, et al.Influential factors of spousal relationship quality in couples living with dementia – A narrative synthesis systematic review. Dementia2023; 22: 281–302.
51.
SzulcJKingN. The practice of dyadic interviewing: strengths, limitations and key decisions. Forum Qual Soc Res2022; 23: 11.
52.
BeuscherLGrandoVT. Challenges in conducting qualitative research with individuals with dementia. Res Gerontol Nurs2009; 2: 6–11.
53.
Diaz-GilABrookeJKozlowskaO, et al.A human rights-based framework for qualitative dementia research. Nurs Ethics2023; 30: 1138–1155.
54.
BorrelliB. The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. J Public Health Dent2011; 71: S52–S63.
55.
BellgAJBorrelliBResnickB, et al.Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH behavior change consortium. Health Psychol2004; 23: 443–451.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
