Dataset Information

D-CARE: The Dementia Care Study: Design of a Pragmatic Trial of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Health System-Based Versus Community-Based Dementia Care Versus Usual Dementia Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

Although several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown.

Design

Pragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is the PWD/caregiver dyad.

Setting

Four clinical trial sites (CTSs) based in academic and clinical health systems.

Participants

A total of 2,150 English- or Spanish-speaking PWD who are not receiving hospice or residing in a nursing home and their caregivers.

Interventions

Eighteen months of (1) HSDC provided by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant dementia care specialist who works within the health system, or (2) CBDC provided by a social worker or nurse care consultant who works at a community-based organization, or (3) UC with as needed referral to the Alzheimer's Association Helpline.

Measurements

Primary outcomes: PWD behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity and Modified Caregiver Strain Index scales.

Secondary outcomes

NPI-Q Distress, caregiver unmet needs and confidence, and caregiver depressive symptoms. Tertiary outcomes: PWD long-term nursing home placement rates, caregiver-reported PWD functional status, cognition, goal attainment, "time spent at home," Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver, a composite measure of clinical benefit, Quality of Life of persons with dementia, Positive Aspects of Caregiving, and cost effectiveness using intervention costs and Medicare claims.

Results

The results will be reported in the spring of 2024.

Conclusion

D-CARE will address whether emphasis on clinical support and tighter integration with other medical services has greater benefit than emphasis on social support that is tied more closely to community resources. It will also assess the effectiveness of both interventions compared with UC and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of each intervention.

SUBMITTER: Reuben DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8086629 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

D-CARE: The Dementia Care Study: Design of a Pragmatic Trial of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Health System-Based Versus Community-Based Dementia Care Versus Usual Dementia Care.

Reuben David B DB Gill Thomas M TM Stevens Alan A Williamson Jeff J Volpi Elena E Lichtenstein Maya M Jennings Lee A LA Tan Zaldy Z Evertson Leslie L Bass David D Weitzman Lisa L Carnie Martie M Wilson Nancy N Araujo Katy K Charpentier Peter P Meng Can C Greene Erich J EJ Dziura James J Liu Jodi J Unger Erin E Yang Mia M Currie Katherine K Lenoir Kristin M KM Green Aval-NaʼRee S AS Abraham Sitara S Vernon Ashley A Samper-Ternent Rafael R Raji Mukaila M Hirst Roxana M RM Galloway Rebecca R Finney Glen R GR Ladd Ilene I Rahm Alanna Kulchak AK Borek Pamela P Peduzzi Peter P

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20201006 11

<h4>Background/objectives</h4>Although several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown.<h4>Design</h4>Pragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is ...[more]

PMID: 32949145

Similar Datasets

Project description:Fatigue is a common yet difficult to treat condition in primary care. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among patients with chronic fatigue in primary care.An economic evaluation alongside of a parallel randomized controlled study design was used. Computer-generated variable-sized block randomization plan was used to assign patients into treatment groups and data collection staff were blinded to group assignments. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years with at least six months of persistent fatigue and no medical or psychiatric exclusions were enrolled from a large primary care practice in Stony Brook, New York. The FSM group (n = 37) received two sessions of a nurse-delivered, fatigue self-management protocol and a self-help book and the usual care group (n = 36) received regular medical care. The effectiveness measure was the Fatigue Severity Scale and the cost measure was total health care expenditures derived from monthly health services use diaries during follow-up. A societal perspective was adopted and bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.The ICER for FSM was -$$2358, indicating that FSM dominates UC and it may generate societal cost savings as compared to usual care. Complete case analysis yielded smaller ICER (-$1199) with greater uncertainties. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has a probability of 0.833 (95% CI: 0.819, 0.847) to achieve positive NMB and the favorable results were not sensitive to assumptions about informal care or treatment costs.This economic evaluation found initial evidence that a two-session brief CBT-based FSM may be cost-effective as compared to usual care over 12 months. The FSM intervention is potentially a promising intervention for chronic fatigue patients in primary care. Additional research is needed to examine the reproducibility and generalizability of these findings.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00997451, March 28, 2009).

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of custom-made insoles compared with general practitioner (GP)-led usual care after 26 weeks of follow-up in individuals with plantar heel pain (PHP) from a societal perspective.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis of a double-blinded randomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practice in the Netherlands.Participants116 participants with PHP for at least 2 weeks, aged 18-65 years and presenting to the GP.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to GP-led usual care (n=46) or referral to a podiatrist for treatment with a custom-made insole (n=70). Participant randomised to a sham insole (n=69) were excluded from this analysis.Primary and secondary outcomesOutcomes comprised pain during rest and activity, and quality of life. Costs included healthcare and lost productivity costs. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping and presented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.ResultsParticipants in the custom-made insole group experienced statistically significant more pain during activity at 26 weeks than participants in the usual care group (overall effect 1.06; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.75). There were no significant differences between groups in other outcomes. Total societal costs in the custom-made insole group were non-significantly higher than in the usual care group (mean difference €376; 95% CI -€1775 to €2038). The intervention with custom-made insoles was dominated by usual care by the GP (ie, more expensive and less effective) for pain during activity and quality of life outcomes. For the outcome pain at rest, the intervention was more expensive and more effective than usual care. However, the maximum probability of cost-effectiveness was only 0.59 at very high ceiling ratios.ConclusionsThese findings show that that custom-made insoles are not cost-effective in comparison with GP-led usual care. Clinicians should be reserved in prescribing custom-made insoles for PHP as a primary intervention.Trial registration numberNTR5346.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline "Unipolar Depression" has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus treatment as usual in depression.MethodsThis prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D-3L as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. Missing values were imputed by 'multiple imputation using chained equations' based on predictive mean matching. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To describe the statistical and decision uncertainty cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on net-benefit regressions with bootstrapped standard errors (1000 replications). The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered.ResultsWe found no statically significant differences in costs and effects between IG and CG. The incremental total societal costs (+€5016; 95%-CI: [-€259;€10,290) and effects (+ 0.008 QALY; 95%-CI: [- 0.030; 0.046]) were higher in the IG in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher total costs and productivity losses in the IG in comparison to the CG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the IG in comparison to the CG were unfavourable (complete sample: €627.000/QALY gained; mild depression: dominated; moderately severe depression: €645.154/QALY gained; severe depression: €2082,714/QALY gained) and the probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was low, except for the group with moderate depression (ICER: dominance; 70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY gained).ConclusionsWe found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to treatment as usual.Trial registrationNCT, NCT01731717 . Registered 22 November 2012 - Retrospectively registered.

Dataset Information

D-CARE: The Dementia Care Study: Design of a Pragmatic Trial of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Health System-Based Versus Community-Based Dementia Care Versus Usual Dementia Care.

Background/objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Measurements

Secondary outcomes

Results

Conclusion

Publications

D-CARE: The Dementia Care Study: Design of a Pragmatic Trial of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Health System-Based Versus Community-Based Dementia Care Versus Usual Dementia Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets