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
老年痴呆症患者和护理者的卫生系统、社区或常规老年痴呆症护理:D-CARE随机临床试验
不同的痴呆症治疗方法的有效性尚不清楚。目的确定以卫生系统为基础、以社区为基础的痴呆症护理以及对痴呆症患者的常规护理的有效性和护理者的结局。设计、环境和参与者:在美国4个地点进行的社区痴呆患者及其护理人员的随机临床试验(入组时间为2019年6月- 2023年1月;最后一次跟进,2023年8月)。干预措施:参与者按7:7:1随机分配到由高级痴呆症护理专家提供的基于卫生系统的护理(n = 1016);由社会工作者、护士或执业治疗师护理顾问提供的社区护理(n = 1016);或常规护理(n = 144)。主要结局和测量方法主要结局是痴呆症患者的照护者报告的神经精神量表(NPI-Q)严重程度评分(范围0-36;得分越高,行为症状越严重;最小临床重要差异[MCID], 2.8-3.2)和改进的照顾者压力指数(范围,0-26;分数越高,压力越大;MCID, 1.5 - -2.3)。三个次要结局包括照顾者自我效能感(范围4-20;得分越高,自我效能感越强)。结果2176对老年痴呆患者,平均年龄80.6岁;58.4%,女性;黑人或西班牙裔占20.6%;照顾者,平均年龄65.2岁;75.8%,女性;和20.8%的黑人或西班牙裔),对超过99%的参与者进行了主要结果评估,1343名参与者(62%的参与者入组,91%的参与者仍然活着,没有退出)在18个月内完成了研究。两种治疗之间或治疗与常规护理之间的主要结果无显著差异。总体而言,卫生系统的NPI-Q得分的最小二乘平均值为9.8,社区为9.5,常规护理为10.1。卫生系统与社区护理之间的差异为0.30 (97.5% CI, -0.18至0.78);卫生系统与常规护理,-0.33 (97.5% CI, -1.32至0.67);社区护理与常规护理相比,-0.62 (97.5% CI, -1.61至0.37)。修改后的护理人员压力指数的lsm在卫生系统为10.7,社区为10.5,常规护理为10.6。卫生系统与社区护理之间的差异为0.25 (97.5% CI, -0.16至0.66);卫生系统vs常规护理,0.14 (97.5% CI, -0.70至0.99);社区与常规护理相比,-0.10 (97.5% CI, -0.94至0.74)。只有护理者自我效能的次要结果在两种治疗中均显著高于常规护理,但在两种治疗之间没有显著性差异:卫生系统的lsm为15.1,社区护理为15.2,常规护理为14.4。卫生系统与社区护理之间的差异为-0.16 (95% CI, -0.37至0.06);卫生系统vs常规护理,0.70 (95% CI, 0.26-1.14);社区护理与常规护理相比,0.85 (95% CI, 0.42至1.29)。结论和相关性在这项痴呆护理项目的随机试验中,基于卫生系统的护理干预和基于社区的护理干预之间没有显著差异,在患者行为症状和护理人员压力方面,积极干预和常规护理之间也没有显著差异。临床试验注册号:NCT03786471。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Sodium Bicarbonate Infusion for Severe Metabolic Acidemia and Acute Kidney Injury. Sodium Bicarbonate Infusion for Severe Metabolic Acidemia and Acute Kidney Injury-Reply. Diagnosis and Management of Resistant Hypertension: A Review. Reflections on FDA Draft Guidance on Bayesian Methods in Trials-Protecting Scientific Integrity and Evidentiary Standards. Opportunity for Improved Menopausal Hormone Therapy Prescribing.
×
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:604180095
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