ArticleQuality in health care : QHC1997
Outcome measures for routine use in dementia services: some practical considerations.
Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Assessment Instruments for Supporting Family Caregivers: An Integrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Formal consensus and consultation: a qualitative method for development of a guideline for dementia.Quality in health care : QHC · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo work with specialist community teams to assess the practicality and acceptability of identified outcome measures for routine use in dementia services.
settingSeven specialist dementia services: four multidisciplinary teams, a specialist service for carers, a community psychiatric nurse team, and a day hospital. SUBJECTS: 20 members of staff from the specialist dementia services including psychiatry, community psychiatric nursing, social work, occupational therapy, Admiral nursing, ward management, geriatric nursing. MAIN MEASURE: A questionnaire designed to assess staff views on the use of six outcome measures in routine practice in terms of practicality, relevance, acceptability, and use in improving care.
resultsEach of the outcome measures took 15 to 30 minutes to administer. All were rated as easy to use and as relevant to dementia services and to carers. Staff commented that the measures could be useful in routine practice for structured assessment and service evaluation, but highlighted the need for sensitive use of measures with carers.
conclusionsThese measures consider the main domains of functioning for people with dementia and their carers. The measures are suitable for use in routine practice in dementia services and are acceptable to staff and carers. The project underlined the need for management support, staff ownership of measures, and training in using outcome measures. Staff concerns about service evaluation need to be acknowledged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.