Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24257429›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Tailored educational intervention for primary care to improve the management of dementia: the EVIDEM-ED cluster randomized controlled trial.

Jane Wilcock, Steve Iliffe, Mark Griffin, Priya Jain, Ingela Thuné-Boyle, Frances Lefford, David Rapp

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized 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. It is linked to trial NCT00866099 (Evidence-based Interventions In Dementia EVIDEM-ED), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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.

NCT00866099 phase2 / phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Evidence-based Interventions In Dementia EVIDEM-ED: Early Recognition and Response in Primary Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity College, LondonRan2009 to 2012Enrolled125ConditionsDementiaArmsEducational Dementia training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jane WilcockResearch Department of Primary Care & Population Health, University College London, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2PF, UK. j.wilcock@ucl.ac.uk.
Steve Iliffe
Mark Griffin
Priya Jain
Ingela Thuné-Boyle
Frances Lefford
David Rapp
The Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBRoland Hill (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly diagnosis of dementia is important because this allows those with dementia and their families to engage support and plan ahead. However, dementia remains underdetected and suboptimally managed in general practice. Our objective was to test the effect of a workplace-based tailored educational intervention developed for general practice on the clinical management of people with dementia.

methodsThe tailored educational intervention was tested in an unblinded cluster randomized controlled trial with a pre/post-intervention design, with two arms: usual/normal care control versus educational intervention. The primary outcome measure was an increase in the proportion of patients with dementia who received at least two documented dementia-specific management reviews per year. Case identification was a secondary outcome measure.

results23 practices in South-East England participated. A total of 1,072 patients with dementia (intervention: 512, control: 560) had information in their medical records showing the number of reviews within 12 months (or a proportion of) before intervention or randomization and within 12 months (or a proportion of) after. The mean total number of dementia management reviews after the educational intervention for people with dementia was 0.89 (SD 1.09; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 8) compared with 0.89 (SD 0.92; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 4) before intervention. In the control group prior to randomization the mean total number of dementia management reviews was 1.66 (SD 1.87; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 12) and in the period after randomization it was 1.56 (SD 1.79; minimum 0; median 1; maximum 11). Case detection rates were unaffected. The estimated incidence rate ratio for intervention versus control group was 1.03 (P = 0.927, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.86).

conclusionsThe trial was timely, coinciding with financial incentives for dementia management in general practice (through the Quality Outcomes Framework); legal imperatives (in the form of the Mental Capacity Act 2005); policy pressure (The National Dementia Strategy 2009); and new resources (such as dementia advisors) that increased the salience of dementia for general practitioners. Despite this the intervention did not alter the documentation of clinical management of patients with dementia in volunteer practices, nor did it increase case identification.

trial registrationNCT00866099/Clinical Trials.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overData CollectionDementiaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareSample Size

Identifiers

PMID24257429
PMCPMC4222692
OpenAlexW2075215166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.