Barry Hounsome

REMCARE: reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers – effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic multicentre randomised trial

OBJECTIVES The aim of the REMiniscence groups for people with dementia and their family CAREgivers (REMCARE) study was to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers as compared with usual care. DESIGN A multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms - an intervention group and a usual-care control group - was carried out. A restricted dynamic method of randomisation was used with an overall allocation ratio of 1 : 1, restricted to ensure intervention groups of a viable size. Assessments, blind to treatment allocation, were carried out at baseline, 3 months and 10 months (primary end point). SETTING Most participants were recruited through NHS Memory Clinics and Community Mental Health Teams for older people. Assessments were usually carried out in the persons home, and treatment groups were held in a variety of community settings. PARTICIPANTS A total of 488 individuals (mean age 77.5 years) with mild to moderate dementia (meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria), who were initially living in the community, and who had a relative or other caregiver maintaining regular contact, who could act as an informant and was willing and able to participate in the intervention, were recruited to the study. Most carers were spouses (71%). A total of 350 dyads completed the study. INTERVENTIONS The intervention consisted of joint reminiscence groups held weekly for 12 consecutive weeks, followed by monthly maintenance sessions for a further 7 months. The sessions followed a treatment manual, and were led by two trained facilitators in each centre, supported by a number of volunteers. Up to 12 dyads were invited to attend each group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measures were self-reported quality of life for the person with dementia and psychological distress for the carer [General Health Questionnaire-28 item version (GHQ-28)]. Secondary outcome measures included autobiographical memory and activities of daily living for the person with dementia, carer stress for the carer and mood, relationship quality and service use and costs for both parties. RESULTS The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimers disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53]. Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a subscale of the GHQ-28 at the 10-month end point (mean difference 1.25, SE 0.5; F = 8.28; p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested some benefits for people with dementia who attended more reminiscence sessions; however, carers attending more groups showed increased caregiving stress. Use of health- and social-care services was modest, with no significant difference in service use between conditions. Owing to negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-year gains (derived from European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) between the conditions the planned full economic analysis was curtailed. CONCLUSIONS This trial does not provide support for the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their carers. Although there may be some beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned, this must be viewed in the context of 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 Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42430123. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 48. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Economic evaluation alongside pragmatic randomised trials: developing a standard operating procedure for clinical trials units.

BackgroundThere is wide recognition that pragmatic randomised trials are the best vehicle for economic evaluation. This is because trials provide the best chance of ensuring internal validity, not least through the rigorous prospective collection of patient-specific data. Furthermore the marginal cost of collecting economic data alongside clinical data is typically modest. UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) does not require a standard operating procedure (SOP) for economic evaluation as a prerequisite for trial unit registration. We judge that such a SOP facilitates the integration of health economics into trials.MethodsA collaboration between health economists and trialists at Bangor University led to the development of a SOP for economic evaluation alongside pragmatic trials, in addition to the twenty SOPs required by UKCRC for registration, which include randomisation, data management and statistical analysis.ResultsOur recent telephone survey suggests that no other UKCRC-registered trials unit currently has an economic SOP.ConclusionWe argue that UKCRC should require, from all Trials Units undertaking economic evaluation and seeking registration or re-registration, a SOP for economic evaluation as one of their portfolio of supporting SOPs.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions for supporting informal caregivers of people with dementia residing in the community

BACKGROUND Dementia places a huge demand on healthcare services; however, a large proportion of the cost is borne by informal caregivers. With the number of people affected by dementia set to increase in the future, there is a need for research to consider the effects of interventions on informal caregivers as well as on the individuals with dementia. This paper seeks to systematically review the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to support informal caregivers of people with dementia residing in the community. METHODS A range of electronic databases was searched. Studies were included if both costs and outcome measures for informal caregivers of people with dementia residing in the community were reported for an intervention. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions were included. Quality of study was assessed using the Drummond ten-item checklist for economic evaluations and results were presented through narrative synthesis. RESULTS Twelve studies were included in the review; of these only four reported a significant difference in the outcome measure for caregivers. CONCLUSIONS At present few published studies report costs in enough detail to provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for supporting caregivers. Future trials need to collect caregiver data alongside patient data in order to increase the evidence base for intervention effectiveness. Further research is required to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches.

REMCARE: pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial of reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family carers: effectiveness and economic analysis

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 persons 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

The use of the EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life in people with dementia and their carers.

PurposeTo assess the acceptability, validity and inter-rater agreement of self- and family carer proxy ratings of the EQ-5D as a generic health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measure, in people with mild to moderate dementia (PwD) living in the community. A secondary aim was to identify the most important factors influencing self- and family carer proxy ratings of HRQOL, distinguishing between spouse and adult child caregiver ratings.MethodsCross-sectional study of 488 dyads using the EQ-5D. Inter-rater agreement was examined using weighted kappa scores, and validity by investigating the association of self- and family carer ratings with clinical variables. Factors affecting HRQOL ratings were analysed using multivariate regression.ResultsThe response rate of the EQ-5D was satisfactory; however, agreement between self- and family carer ratings was poor. The most important predictors of PwD and carer ratings of the PwD’s HRQOL were family carer ratings of activities of daily living and mood. Anxiety experienced by the PwD was a significant predictor of self-rated HRQOL, whereas depressive symptoms independently predicted family carer ratings. The type of the caregiving relationship influenced carer ratings of HRQOL, whereby sons and daughters rated HRQOL lower for the PwD compared with spousal caregivers.ConclusionsPeople with mild to moderate dementia are able to rate their own HRQOL through a brief generic instrument; however, self-ratings consistently differ from family carer ratings, which should be acknowledged in cost-effectiveness analyses. Spouse caregivers rate HRQOL for the PwD more positively compared to adult children.

The AgeWell study of behavior change to promote health and wellbeing in later life: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundLifestyle factors playing a role in the development of late-life disability may be modifiable. There is a need for robust evidence about the potential for prevention of disability through behavior change interventions.Methods/designThis feasibility study involves the development, implementation and initial testing of a behavior change intervention in a naturalistic setting. A small-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) will investigate the implementation of a goal-setting intervention aimed at promoting behavior change in the domains of physical and cognitive activity in the context of a community resource center for over-50s. Healthy older participants attending the center (n = 75) will be randomized to one of three conditions: control (an interview involving a general discussion about the center); goal-setting (an interview involving identification of up to five personal goals in the domains of physical activity, cognitive activity, diet and health, and social engagement); or goal-setting with mentoring (the goal-setting interview followed by bi-monthly telephone mentoring). All participants will be reassessed after 12 months. Primary outcomes are levels of physical and cognitive activity. Secondary outcomes address psychosocial (self-efficacy, mood, quality of life), cognitive (memory and executive function), and physical fitness (functional and metabolic) domains. Cost-effectiveness will also be examined.DiscussionThis study will provide information about the feasibility of a community-based lifestyle intervention model for over-50s and of the implementation of a goal-setting intervention for behavior change, together with initial evidence about the short-term effects of goal-setting on behavior.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN30080637 (http://www.controlled-trials.com)

Health economics research into supporting carers of people with dementia: A systematic review of outcome measures

Advisory bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, advocate using preference based instruments to measure the quality of life (QoL) component of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Cost per QALY is used to determine cost-effectiveness, and hence funding, of interventions. QALYs allow policy makers to compare the effects of different interventions across different patient groups. Generic measures may not be sensitive enough to fully capture the QoL effects for certain populations, such as carers, so there is a need to consider additional outcome measures, which are preference based where possible to enable cost-effectiveness analysis to be undertaken. This paper reviews outcome measures commonly used in health services research and health economics research involving carers of people with dementia. An electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included an outcome measure for carers of people with dementia. 2262 articles were identified. 455 articles describing 361 studies remained after exclusion criteria were applied. 228 outcome measures were extracted from the studies. Measures were categorised into 44 burden measures, 43 mastery measures, 61 mood measures, 32 QoL measures, 27 social support and relationships measures and 21 staff competency and morale measures. The choice of instrument has implications on funding decisions; therefore, researchers need to choose appropriate instruments for the population being measured and the type of intervention undertaken. If an instrument is not sensitive enough to detect changes in certain populations, the effect of an intervention may be underestimated, and hence interventions which may appear to be beneficial to participants are not deemed cost-effective and are not funded. If this is the case, it is essential that additional outcome measures which detect changes in broader QoL are included, whilst still retaining preference based utility measures such as EQ-5D to allow QALY calculation for comparability with other interventions.

Self and carer perspectives of quality of life in dementia using the QoL-AD

Quality of life (QoL) is one of the most important outcomes in improving well‐being in people with dementia (PwD). The primary aim of the present study was to compare self and carer ratings of QoL in PwD and to identify the most important factors influencing self and carer ratings.