Dataset Information

REMCARE: Pragmatic Multi-Centre Randomised Trial of Reminiscence Groups for People with Dementia and their Family Carers: Effectiveness and Economic Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Joint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care.

Methods

This multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person's home. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Included participants were community resident people with mild to moderate dementia (DSM-IV), who had a relative or other care-giver in regular contact, to act as informant and willing and able to participate in intervention. 71% carers were spouses. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5)were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control; 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks; monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers. Primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia (QoL-AD), psychological distress for the carer (General Health Questionnaire, GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included: autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia; carer stress for the carer; mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both.

Results

The intention to treat analysis (ANCOVA) identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes (self-reported QoL-AD mean difference 0.07 (-1.21 to 1.35), F = 0.48, p = 0.53). Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a General Health Questionnaire-28 sub-scale at the ten month end-point (mean difference 1.25 (0.25 to 2.26), F = 8.28, p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested improved autobiographical memory, quality of life and relationship quality for people with dementia attending more reminiscence sessions, however carers attending more groups showed increased care-giving stress. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Potential limitations of the study include less than optimal attendance at the group sessions--only 57% of participants attended at least half of the intervention sessions over the 10 month period, and a higher rate of study withdrawal in the control group.

Conclusions

This trial does not support the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups. Possible beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned are offset by raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN42430123.

SUBMITTER: Woods RT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4836678 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

REMCARE: Pragmatic Multi-Centre Randomised Trial of Reminiscence Groups for People with Dementia and their Family Carers: Effectiveness and Economic Analysis.

Woods Robert T RT Orrell Martin M Bruce Errollyn E Edwards Rhiannon T RT Hoare Zoe Z Hounsome Barry B Keady John J Moniz-Cook Esme E Orgeta Vasiliki V Rees Janice J Russell Ian I

PloS one 20160419 4

<h4>Background</h4>Joint reminiscence groups, involving people with dementia and family carers together, are popular, but the evidence-base is limited. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups as compared to usual care.<h4>Methods</h4>This multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocatio ...[more]

PMID: 27093052

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe care of people with dementia is associated with enormous stress and, in a quarter of cases, leads to depression and anxiety disorders in the caring relatives. A specially designed inpatient psychosomatic rehabilitation (rehab) programme for family carers of people with dementia has proven to be effective but not sustainable. Therefore, the present study aims to increase the sustainability of the inpatient rehab programme by using thematically structured telephone aftercare group sessions.MethodsThe effectiveness of telephone aftercare groups was investigated in a randomized, controlled, prospective, mixed methods, longitudinal study. The aftercare intervention included social participation in monthly telephone group sessions for 6 months. The primary outcome was increased social participation of family carers, which, like the secondary outcomes (such as quality of life and subjective health), was assessed in written surveys at three or four measurement points.ResultsComplete data from 69 participants from the intervention group and from 72 participants from the control group could be evaluated. A small-sized reduction in restrictions on social participation was observed in the intervention group, whereas the reduction in the control group was negligible. The repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed sustained effects on the secondary outcomes, such as depression, perceived social support, and the mental health domain of quality of life of family carers, in favour of the intervention group. The results also showed that telephone-based aftercare groups had a rather minor influence on the use of support services. Except for those from family, friends and neighbours, existing support offers were hardly used.ConclusionTelephone aftercare group sessions for carers of people with dementia were not able to increase social participation at the expected magnitude. Nevertheless, the clear effects on selected secondary health-related outcomes and the assessment of the telephone-based group sessions by the participants show that the caring relatives were able to benefit greatly from this aftercare measure. Family carers should be informed more extensively about the corresponding resources and encouraged to use them. Overall, this new aftercare concept can be recommended for implementation, and its use also seems to be target-oriented for other indications.Clinical trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00013736 , 14/05/2018.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether the START (STrAtegies for RelatTives) intervention added to treatment as usual is cost effective compared with usual treatment alone.DesignCost effectiveness analysis nested within a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.SettingThree mental health and one neurological outpatient dementia service in London and Essex, UK.ParticipantsFamily carers of people with dementia.InterventionEight session, manual based, coping intervention delivered by supervised psychology graduates to family carers of people with dementia added to usual treatment, compared with usual treatment alone.Primary outcome measuresCosts measured from a health and social care perspective were analysed alongside the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total score (HADS-T) of affective symptoms and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in cost effectiveness analyses over eight months from baseline.ResultsOf the 260 participants recruited to the study, 173 were randomised to the START intervention, and 87 to usual treatment alone. Mean HADS-T scores were lower in the intervention group than the usual treatment group over the 8 month evaluation period (mean difference -1.79 (95% CI -3.32 to -0.33)), indicating better outcomes associated with the START intervention. There was a small improvement in health related quality of life as measured by QALYs (0.03 (-0.01 to 0.08)). Costs were no different between the intervention and usual treatment groups (£252 (-28 to 565) higher for START group). The cost effectiveness calculations suggested that START had a greater than 99% chance of being cost effective compared with usual treatment alone at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained, and a high probability of cost effectiveness on the HADS-T measure.ConclusionsThe manual based coping intervention START, when added to treatment as usual, was cost effective compared with treatment as usual alone by reference to both outcome measures (affective symptoms for family carers, and carer based QALYs).Trial registrationISCTRN 70017938.

Project description:BackgroundFatigue is a common and troubling symptom for people with multiple sclerosis (MS).AimTo evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a six-session group-based programme for managing MS-fatigue (Fatigue: Applying Cognitive behavioural and Energy effectiveness Techniques to lifeStyle (FACETS)).MethodsThree-centre parallel arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Patients with MS and significant fatigue were randomised to FACETS plus current local practice (FACETS) or current local practice alone (CLP), using concealed computer-generated randomisation. Participant blinding was not possible. Primary outcomes were fatigue severity (Fatigue Assessment Instrument), self-efficacy (Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy) and disease-specific quality of life (Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)) at 1 and 4 months postintervention (follow-up 1 and 2). Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated (EuroQoL 5-Dimensions questionnaire and the Short-form 6-Dimensions questionnaire).ResultsBetween May 2008 and November 2009, 164 patients were randomised; primary outcome data were available for 146 (89%). Statistically significant differences favour the intervention group on fatigue self-efficacy at follow-up 1 (mean difference (MD) 9, 95% CI (4 to 14), standardised effect size (SES) 0.54, p=0.001) and follow-up 2 (MD 6, 95% CI (0 to 12), SES 0.36, p=0.05) and fatigue severity at follow-up 2 (MD -0.36, 95% CI (-0.63 to -0.08), SES -0.35, p=0.01) but no differences for MSIS-29 or QALYs. No adverse events reported. Estimated cost per person for FACETS is £453; findings suggest an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2157 per additional person with a clinically significant improvement in fatigue.ConclusionsFACETS is effective in reducing fatigue severity and increasing fatigue self-efficacy. However, it is difficult to assess the additional cost in terms of cost-effectiveness (ie, cost per QALY) as improvements in fatigue are not reflected in the QALY outcomes, with no significant differences between FACETS and CLP. The strengths of this trial are its pragmatic nature and high external validity.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN76517470.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether a manual based coping strategy compared with treatment as usual reduces depression and anxiety symptoms in carers of family members with dementia.DesignRandomised, parallel group, superiority trial.SettingThree mental health community services and one neurological outpatient dementia service in London and Essex, UK.Participants260 carers of family members with dementia.InterventionA manual based coping intervention comprising eight sessions and delivered by supervised psychology graduates to carers of family members with dementia. The programme consisted of psychoeducation about dementia, carers' stress, and where to get emotional support; understanding behaviours of the family member being cared for, and behavioural management techniques; changing unhelpful thoughts; promoting acceptance; assertive communication; relaxation; planning for the future; increasing pleasant activities; and maintaining skills learnt. Carers practised these techniques at home, using the manual and relaxation CDs.Main outcome measuresAffective symptoms (hospital anxiety and depression total score) at four and eight months. Secondary outcomes were depression and anxiety caseness on the hospital anxiety and depression scale; quality of life of both the carer (health status questionnaire, mental health) and the recipient of care (quality of life-Alzheimer's disease); and potentially abusive behaviour by the carer towards the recipient of care (modified conflict tactics scale).Results260 carers were recruited; 173 were randomised to the intervention and 87 to treatment as usual. Mean total scores on the hospital anxiety and depression scale were lower in the intervention group than in the treatment as usual group over the eight month evaluation period: adjusted difference in means -1.80 points (95% confidence interval -3.29 to -0.31; P=0.02) and absolute difference in means -2.0 points. Carers in the intervention group were less likely to have case level depression (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.76) and there was a non-significant trend towards reduced case level anxiety (0.30, 0.08 to 1.05). Carers' quality of life was higher in the intervention group (difference in means 4.09, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 7.83) but not for the recipient of care (difference in means 0.59, -0.72 to 1.89). Carers in the intervention group reported less abusive behaviour towards the recipient of care compared with those in the treatment as usual group (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 1.23), although this was not significant.ConclusionsA manual based coping strategy was effective in reducing affective symptoms and case level depression in carers of family members with dementia. The carers' quality of life also improved.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISCTRN70017938.

Project description:IntroductionAs the largest and most rapidly ageing population, Chinese people are now the major driver of the continued growth in dementia prevalence globally. The need for evidence-based interventions in Chinese communities is urgent. Although a wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for dementia have been trialled in Chinese populations, the evidence has not been systematically synthesised. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to map out the interventions for people living with dementia and their carers in Chinese communities worldwide and compare the effectiveness of these interventions.Methods and analysisThis protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. We will search Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang DATA) and English bibliographical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODelling Outcome and cost impacts of interventions for DEMentia (MODEM) Toolkit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), complemented by hand searching of reference lists. We will include studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for dementia or mild cognitive impairment in Chinese populations, using a randomised controlled trial design, and published between January 2008 and June 2020. We will use a standardised form to extract data and Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Collected data will be fully interpreted with narrative synthesis and analysed using pairwise and network meta-analyses to pool intervention effects where sufficient information is available. We will perform subgroup analysis and meta-regression to explore potential reasons for heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethics approval is required for this protocol. The findings will facilitate the development of studies on interventions for dementia and timely inform dementia policymaking and practice. Planned dissemination channels include peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, public events and websites.Prospero registration numberCRD42019134135.

Dataset Information

REMCARE: Pragmatic Multi-Centre Randomised Trial of Reminiscence Groups for People with Dementia and their Family Carers: Effectiveness and Economic Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

REMCARE: Pragmatic Multi-Centre Randomised Trial of Reminiscence Groups for People with Dementia and their Family Carers: Effectiveness and Economic Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets