Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatrics, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Nov;68(11):2492-2499. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16862. Epub 2020 Oct 6.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Although several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown.
Pragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is the PWD/caregiver dyad.
Four clinical trial sites (CTSs) based in academic and clinical health systems.
A total of 2,150 English- or Spanish-speaking PWD who are not receiving hospice or residing in a nursing home and their caregivers.
Eighteen months of (1) HSDC provided by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant dementia care specialist who works within the health system, or (2) CBDC provided by a social worker or nurse care consultant who works at a community-based organization, or (3) UC with as needed referral to the Alzheimer's Association Helpline.
Primary outcomes: PWD behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity and Modified Caregiver Strain Index scales.
NPI-Q Distress, caregiver unmet needs and confidence, and caregiver depressive symptoms. Tertiary outcomes: PWD long-term nursing home placement rates, caregiver-reported PWD functional status, cognition, goal attainment, "time spent at home," Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver, a composite measure of clinical benefit, Quality of Life of persons with dementia, Positive Aspects of Caregiving, and cost effectiveness using intervention costs and Medicare claims.
The results will be reported in the spring of 2024.
D-CARE will address whether emphasis on clinical support and tighter integration with other medical services has greater benefit than emphasis on social support that is tied more closely to community resources. It will also assess the effectiveness of both interventions compared with UC and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of each intervention.
背景/目的:尽管已经开发出几种方法来为患有痴呆症的患者(PWD)及其家庭或朋友护理人员提供全面护理,但基于社区的痴呆症护理(CBDC)与基于健康系统的痴呆症护理(CBDC)的相对有效性和成本效益,以及这两种方法与常规护理(UC)相比的有效性尚不清楚。
实用随机三臂优效性试验。随机单位是 PWD/护理人员对子。
基于学术和临床医疗系统的四个临床试验基地(CTS)。
共有 2150 名讲英语或西班牙语的 PWD,他们没有接受临终关怀或居住在养老院,以及他们的护理人员。
18 个月的(1)HSDC 由在健康系统内工作的护士从业者或医生助理痴呆症护理专家提供,或(2)CBDC 由在社区组织工作的社会工作者或护士护理顾问提供,或(3)UC 根据需要转介到阿尔茨海默病协会帮助热线。
主要结果:PWD 行为症状和护理人员困扰程度,通过神经精神疾病问卷(NPI-Q)严重程度和改良护理人员压力指数量表进行测量。
NPI-Q 困扰、护理人员未满足的需求和信心、护理人员抑郁症状。三级结果:PWD 长期入住养老院的比例、护理人员报告的 PWD 功能状态、认知、目标实现、“在家时间”、痴呆负担量表-护理人员、临床效益综合衡量标准、痴呆患者生活质量、积极护理方面,以及干预成本和医疗保险索赔的成本效益。
结果将于 2024 年春季公布。
D-CARE 将解决强调临床支持和与其他医疗服务更紧密整合是否比强调更紧密地与社区资源联系的社会支持更有优势。它还将评估这两种干预措施与 UC 相比的有效性,并评估每种干预措施的成本效益。