Centre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Aging Ment Health. 2021 Aug;25(8):1410-1423. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1745144. Epub 2020 Apr 13.
Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population.
Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention ( = 31) and control ( = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline ( = 726) and 16 months ( = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome.
DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample ( = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle.
No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.
痴呆症患者在养老院中常出现激越症状,且该症状较为棘手。本研究旨在评估痴呆症关爱映射法(Dementia Care Mapping,DCM)对降低该人群激越症状的(成本)效果。
这是一项实用、集群随机对照试验,对 50 家养老院进行成本效益分析,在 6 个月和 16 个月进行随访,并按干预( = 31)和对照( = 19)进行分层随机分组。在基线( = 726)和 16 个月( = 261)招募患有痴呆症的居民。各集群对分组方案不设盲。计划进行三轮 DCM 周期,每轮由每家养老院的两名培训人员实施。第一轮由一名外部 DCM 专家提供支持。16 个月时的激越症状(Cohen-Mansfield 激越量表(CMAI))为主要结局。
DCM 并未优于对照组(横断面样本量 = 675:287 例对照,388 例干预)。调整后的 CMAI 评分差值为 -2.11 分(95%CI-4.66 至 0.44, = 0.104,调整后的 ICC 对照 = 0,干预 = 0.001)。敏感性分析支持主要分析结果。基于封闭队列基线招募样本( = 726,418 例干预,308 例对照),DCM 干预每提高一个单位的 CMAI 和 QALY(与对照组相比)的增量成本分别为 289 英镑和 60627 英镑。原始队列在 16 个月时的失访率为 312/726(43·0%),主要原因是死亡(87·2%)。干预的剂量较低,只有四分之一的养老院完成了一个以上的 DCM 周期。
未发现 DCM 的获益证据。低剂量的干预表明标准养老院可能没有足够的资源来实施 DCM。应考虑其他实施模式或减少激越的其他方法。