Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29343173›Full record

Trial reportPalliative medicine2018

Effects of two feedback interventions on end-of-life outcomes in nursing home residents with dementia: A cluster-randomized controlled three-armed trial.

Jannie A Boogaard, Henrica C W de Vet, Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet, Johannes R Anema, Wilco P Achterberg, Jenny T van der Steen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Palliative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

6 authors.

Jannie A Boogaard1 Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henrica C W de Vet2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet3 Trimbos-Instituut-The Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johannes R Anema4 Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wilco P Achterberg5 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jenny T van der Steen5 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite increased attention for palliative care in dementia, recent studies found burdensome symptoms and unmet family caregiver needs in the last phase of life. Feedback is being used to improve the quality of palliative care, but we do not know how effective it is.

aimTo assess the effect of two feedback strategies on perceived quality of end-of-life care and comfort in dying nursing home residents with dementia.

methodsIn a cluster-randomized controlled trial, the End-of-Life in Dementia-Satisfaction With Care and the End-of-Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying scales were completed by bereaved family caregivers of residents with dementia of 18 Dutch nursing homes. Two feedback strategies, generic feedback with mean End-of-Life in Dementia-scores and feedback with individual (patient-specific) End-of-Life in Dementia-scores, were compared to no feedback provided. The intervention groups discussed End-of-Life in Dementia-ratings in team meetings and formulated actions to improve care. Multi-level analyses assessed effects.

resultsA total of 668 families rated the End-of-Life in Dementia-instruments. Compared to no feedback, the generic strategy resulted in lower quality of end-of-life care in unadjusted ( B = -1.65, confidence interval = -3.27; -0.21) and adjusted analyses ( B = -2.41, confidence interval = -4.07; -0.76), while there was no effect on comfort. The patient-specific strategy did not affect the quality of end-of-life care, but it increased comfort in unadjusted analyses (only, B = 2.20, confidence interval = 0.15; 4.39; adjusted: B = 1.88, confidence interval = -0.34; 4.10).

conclusionNeither feedback strategy improved end-of-life outcome. Perhaps, skills to translate the feedback into care improvement actions were insufficient. Feedback with favorable family ratings might even have triggered opposite effects. Trial number: NTR3942.

Indexed as

FeedbackAgedAged, 80 and overDementiaFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursing HomesPalliative CareQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareQuality of LifeTerminal Caredementianursing homesPalliative carequality improvementquality of health care

Identifiers

PMID29343173
PMCPMC5851130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.