There is increasing recognition that in dementia care psychosocial interventions may have comparable value to pharmacological approaches and may be preferable in some contexts, e.g. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Ĭompeting interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Please contact This work was funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme Ref: 06/304/229, and Medical Research Council Ref: G0300932. Participants did not give informed consent for data sharing, and so data can only be made available by agreement of an NHS Ethics Committee. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.ĭata Availability: The data for the study are archived with the North Wales Organisation for Rigorous Trials in Health and Social Care (NWORTH) at Bangor University, a clinical trials unit accredited with the UK Clinical Research network. Received: DecemAccepted: MaPublished: April 19, 2016Ĭopyright: © 2016 Woods et al. Quinn, University of Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM
Reminisce group trial#
(2016) REMCARE: Pragmatic Multi-Centre Randomised Trial of Reminiscence Groups for People with Dementia and their Family Carers: Effectiveness and Economic Analysis. 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.Ĭitation: Woods RT, Orrell M, Bruce E, Edwards RT, Hoare Z, Hounsome B, et al. There were no significant adverse effects attributed to the intervention. Economic analyses from a public sector perspective indicated that joint reminiscence groups are unlikely to be cost-effective. 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. 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).
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). 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. 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). Two trained facilitators in each centre were supported by volunteers.
Reminisce group manual#
Sessions followed a published treatment manual and were held in a variety of community settings. The intervention evaluated was joint reminiscence groups (with up to 12 dyads) weekly for twelve weeks monthly maintenance sessions for further seven months. 488 people with dementia (mean age 77.5)were randomised: 268 intervention, 220 control 350 dyads completed the study (206 intervention, 144 control). 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. Participants were recruited in eight centres, mainly through NHS Memory Clinics and NHS community mental health teams. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, three months and ten months (primary end-point), usually in the person's home.
A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used, with an overall allocation ratio of 1:1, restricted to ensure viable sized intervention groups. This multi-centre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial had two parallel arms: intervention group and usual-care control group.
0 kommentar(er)
