Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24152600›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Does telecare prolong community living in dementia? A study protocol for a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

Iracema Leroi, John Woolham, Rebecca Gathercole, Robert Howard, Barbara Dunk, Chris Fox, John O'Brien, Andrew Bateman, Fiona Poland, Peter Bentham and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Oncophone20 study: Patients' perception of telemedicine in the COVID-19 pandemic during follow-up visits for gynecological and breast cancers.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

18 authors.

Iracema LeroiInstitute of Brain, Behaviour and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, 3rd floor, Oxford Rd, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Iracema.Leroi@manchester.ac.uk.
John Woolham
Rebecca Gathercole
Robert Howard
Barbara Dunk
Chris Fox
John O'Brien
Andrew Bateman
Fiona Poland
Peter Bentham
Alistair Burns
Anna Davies
Kirsty Forsyth
Richard Gray
Martin Knapp
Stanton Newman
Rupert McShane
Craig Ritchie

Funding

Department of Health 10/50/02Medical Research Council MC_U137686861
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssistive technology and telecare (ATT) are relatively new ways of delivering care and support to people with social care needs. It is claimed that ATT reduces the need for community care, prevents unnecessary hospital admission, and delays or prevents admission into residential or nursing care. The current economic situation in England has renewed interest in ATT instead of community care packages. However, at present, the evidence base to support claims about the impact and effectiveness of ATT is limited, despite its potential to mitigate the high financial cost of caring for people with dementia and the social and psychological cost to unpaid carers. METHOD/

designATTILA (Assistive Technology and Telecare to maintain Independent Living At Home for People with Dementia) is a pragmatic, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial over 104 weeks that compares outcomes for people with dementia who receive ATT and those who receive equivalent community services but not ATT. The study hypothesis is that fewer people in the ATT group will go into institutional care over the 4-year period for which the study is funded. The study aims to recruit 500 participants, living in community settings, with dementia or significant cognitive impairment, who have recently been referred to social services.Primary outcome measures are time in days from randomisation to institutionalisation and cost effectiveness. Secondary outcomes are caregiver burden, health-related quality of life in carers, number and severity of serious adverse events, and data on acceptability, applicability and reliability of ATT intervention packages. Assessments will be undertaken in weeks 0 (baseline), 12, 24, 52 and 104 or until institutionalisation or withdrawal of the participant from the trial. DISCUSSION: In a time of financial austerity, CASSRs in England are increasingly turning to ATT in the belief that it will deliver good outcomes for less money. There is an absence of robust evidence for the cost-effectiveness and benefit of using assistive technology and telecare. The ATTILA trial meets a pressing need for robust, generalisable evidence to either justify continuing investment or reappraise the appropriate scale of ATT use.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesIndependent LivingResearch DesignTelemedicineClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisDementiaEnglandHealth Care CostsHumansInstitutionalizationTime FactorsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24152600
PMCPMC4015839

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.