Health System, Community-Based, or Usual Dementia Care for Persons With Dementia and Caregivers: The D-CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1001/jama.2024.25056
David B Reuben,Thomas M Gill,Alan Stevens,Jeff Williamson,Elena Volpi,Maya Lichtenstein,Lee A Jennings,Rebecca Galloway,Jenny Summapund,Katy Araujo,David Bass,Lisa Weitzman,Zaldy S Tan,Leslie Evertson,Mia Yang,Katherine Currie,Aval-Na'Ree S Green,Sybila Godoy,Sitara Abraham,Jordan Reese,Rafael Samper-Ternent,Roxana M Hirst,Pamela Borek,Peter Charpentier,Can Meng,James Dziura,Yunshan Xu,Eleni A Skokos,Zili He,Sherry Aiudi,Peter Peduzzi,Erich J Greene,
{"title":"Health System, Community-Based, or Usual Dementia Care for Persons With Dementia and Caregivers: The D-CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"David B Reuben,Thomas M Gill,Alan Stevens,Jeff Williamson,Elena Volpi,Maya Lichtenstein,Lee A Jennings,Rebecca Galloway,Jenny Summapund,Katy Araujo,David Bass,Lisa Weitzman,Zaldy S Tan,Leslie Evertson,Mia Yang,Katherine Currie,Aval-Na'Ree S Green,Sybila Godoy,Sitara Abraham,Jordan Reese,Rafael Samper-Ternent,Roxana M Hirst,Pamela Borek,Peter Charpentier,Can Meng,James Dziura,Yunshan Xu,Eleni A Skokos,Zili He,Sherry Aiudi,Peter Peduzzi,Erich J Greene,","doi":"10.1001/jama.2024.25056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance\r\nThe effectiveness of different approaches to dementia care is unknown.\r\n\r\nObjective\r\nTo determine the effectiveness of health system-based, community-based dementia care, and usual care for persons with dementia and for caregiver outcomes.\r\n\r\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\r\nRandomized clinical trial of community-dwelling persons living with dementia and their caregivers conducted at 4 sites in the US (enrollment June 2019-January 2023; final follow-up, August 2023).\r\n\r\nInterventions\r\nParticipants were randomized 7:7:1 to health system-based care provided by an advanced practice dementia care specialist (n = 1016); community-based care provided by a social worker, nurse, or licensed therapist care consultant (n = 1016); or usual care (n = 144).\r\n\r\nMain Outcomes and Measures\r\nPrimary outcomes were caregiver-reported Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) severity score for persons living with dementia (range, 0-36; higher scores, greater behavioral symptoms severity; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 2.8-3.2) and Modified Caregiver Strain Index for caregivers (range, 0-26; higher scores, greater strain; MCID, 1.5-2.3). Three secondary outcomes included caregiver self-efficacy (range, 4-20; higher scores, more self-efficacy).\r\n\r\nResults\r\nAmong 2176 dyads (individuals with dementia, mean age, 80.6 years; 58.4%, female; and 20.6%, Black or Hispanic; caregivers, mean age, 65.2 years; 75.8%, female; and 20.8% Black or Hispanic), primary outcomes were assessed for more than 99% of participants, and 1343 participants (62% of those enrolled and 91% still alive and had not withdrawn) completed the study through 18 months. No significant differences existed between the 2 treatments or between treatments vs usual care for the primary outcomes. Overall, the least squares means (LSMs) for NPI-Q scores were 9.8 for health system, 9.5 for community-based, and 10.1 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.30 (97.5% CI, -0.18 to 0.78); health system vs usual care, -0.33 (97.5% CI, -1.32 to 0.67); and community-based vs usual care, -0.62 (97.5% CI, -1.61 to 0.37). The LSMs for the Modified Caregiver Strain Index were 10.7 for health system, 10.5 for community-based, and 10.6 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.25 (97.5% CI, -0.16 to 0.66); health system vs usual care, 0.14 (97.5% CI, -0.70 to 0.99); and community-based vs usual care, -0.10 (97.5% CI, -0.94 to 0.74). Only the secondary outcome of caregiver self-efficacy was significantly higher for both treatments vs usual care but not between treatments: LSMs were 15.1 for health system, 15.2 for community-based, and 14.4 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was -0.16 (95% CI, -0.37 to 0.06); health system vs usual care, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.26-1.14); and community-based vs usual care, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.29).\r\n\r\nConclusions and Relevance\r\nIn this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain.\r\n\r\nTrial Registration\r\nClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03786471.","PeriodicalId":518009,"journal":{"name":"JAMA","volume":"130 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.25056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance The effectiveness of different approaches to dementia care is unknown. Objective To determine the effectiveness of health system-based, community-based dementia care, and usual care for persons with dementia and for caregiver outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial of community-dwelling persons living with dementia and their caregivers conducted at 4 sites in the US (enrollment June 2019-January 2023; final follow-up, August 2023). Interventions Participants were randomized 7:7:1 to health system-based care provided by an advanced practice dementia care specialist (n = 1016); community-based care provided by a social worker, nurse, or licensed therapist care consultant (n = 1016); or usual care (n = 144). Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were caregiver-reported Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) severity score for persons living with dementia (range, 0-36; higher scores, greater behavioral symptoms severity; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 2.8-3.2) and Modified Caregiver Strain Index for caregivers (range, 0-26; higher scores, greater strain; MCID, 1.5-2.3). Three secondary outcomes included caregiver self-efficacy (range, 4-20; higher scores, more self-efficacy). Results Among 2176 dyads (individuals with dementia, mean age, 80.6 years; 58.4%, female; and 20.6%, Black or Hispanic; caregivers, mean age, 65.2 years; 75.8%, female; and 20.8% Black or Hispanic), primary outcomes were assessed for more than 99% of participants, and 1343 participants (62% of those enrolled and 91% still alive and had not withdrawn) completed the study through 18 months. No significant differences existed between the 2 treatments or between treatments vs usual care for the primary outcomes. Overall, the least squares means (LSMs) for NPI-Q scores were 9.8 for health system, 9.5 for community-based, and 10.1 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.30 (97.5% CI, -0.18 to 0.78); health system vs usual care, -0.33 (97.5% CI, -1.32 to 0.67); and community-based vs usual care, -0.62 (97.5% CI, -1.61 to 0.37). The LSMs for the Modified Caregiver Strain Index were 10.7 for health system, 10.5 for community-based, and 10.6 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.25 (97.5% CI, -0.16 to 0.66); health system vs usual care, 0.14 (97.5% CI, -0.70 to 0.99); and community-based vs usual care, -0.10 (97.5% CI, -0.94 to 0.74). Only the secondary outcome of caregiver self-efficacy was significantly higher for both treatments vs usual care but not between treatments: LSMs were 15.1 for health system, 15.2 for community-based, and 14.4 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was -0.16 (95% CI, -0.37 to 0.06); health system vs usual care, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.26-1.14); and community-based vs usual care, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.29). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03786471.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diminishing Objectivity in the Residency Application Process Little Parcels of Joy Eliminating the Medicare Coverage Gap for Intranasal Naloxone and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Adults With Chronic Respiratory Disease Trends in Fills, Spending, and Prices of Doxepin for Insomnia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1