Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22429384›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2012

Decision aids for respite service choices by carers of people with dementia: development and pilot RCT.

Christine Stirling, Susan Leggett, Barbara Lloyd, Jenn Scott, Leigh Blizzard, Stephen Quinn, Andrew Robinson

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A decision aid to support family carers of people living with dementia towards the end-of-life: Coproduction process, outcome and reflections.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Respite care for people with dementia and their carers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Supporting activity engagement by family carers at home: maintenance of agency and personhood in dementia.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for drivers with dementia.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Christine StirlingWicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, Menzies Research Institute, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 121, Hobart, TAS, Australia 7000. Christine.Stirling@utas.edu.au
Susan Leggett
Barbara Lloyd
Jenn Scott
Leigh Blizzard
Stephen Quinn
Andrew Robinson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDecision aids are often used to assist individuals confronted with a diagnosis of a serious illness to make decisions about treatment options. However, they are rarely utilised to help those with chronic or age related conditions to make decisions about care services. Decision aids should also be useful for carers of people with decreased decisional capacity. These carers' choices must balance health outcomes for themselves and for salient others with relational and value-based concerns, while relying on information from health professionals. This paper reports on a study that both developed and pilot tested a decision aid aimed at assisting carers to make evaluative judgements of community services, particularly respite care.

methodsA mixed method sequential study, involving qualitative development and a pilot randomised controlled trial, was conducted in Tasmania, Australia. We undertook 13 semi-structured interviews and three focus groups to inform the development of the decision aid. For the randomised control trial we randomly assigned 31 carers of people with dementia to either receive the service decision aid at the start or end of the study. The primary outcome was measured by comparing the difference in carer burden between the two groups three months after the intervention group received the decision aid. Pilot data was collected from carers using interviewer-administered questionnaires at the commencement of the project, two weeks and 12 weeks later.

resultsThe qualitative data strongly suggest that the intervention provides carers with needed decision support. Most carers felt that the decision aid was useful. The trial data demonstrated that, using the mean change between baseline and three month follow-up, the intervention group had less increase in burden, a decrease in decisional conflict and increased knowledge compared to control group participants.

conclusionsWhile these results must be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size, all intervention results trend in a direction that is beneficial for carers and their decisional ability. Mixed method data suggest the decision aid provides decisional support that carers do not otherwise receive. Decision aids may prove useful in a community health services context. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN32163031.

Indexed as

CaregiversCommunity Health ServicesDecision Support TechniquesDementiaEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePilot ProjectsProgram DevelopmentRespite CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID22429384
PMCPMC3315425

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.