Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130142›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2020

Online Self-Management Support for Family Caregivers Dealing With Behavior Changes in Relatives With Dementia (Part 2): Randomized Controlled Trial.

Judith G Huis In Het Veld, Bernadette M Willemse, Iris Fm van Asch, Rob Bm Groot Zwaaftink, Paul-Jeroen Verkade, Jos Wr Twisk, Renate Verkaik, Marco M Blom, Berno van Meijel, Anneke L Francke

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-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.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Judith G Huis In Het VeldDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4020-9610
Bernadette M WillemseNetherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3890-8159
Iris Fm van AschNetherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Trimbos Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1557-9433
Rob Bm Groot ZwaaftinkDutch Alzheimer's Society, Amersfoort, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0625-0823
Paul-Jeroen VerkadeThe Geriant Foundation, Region North of Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7031-5962
Jos Wr TwiskDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9617-1020
Renate VerkaikNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9457-1984
Marco M BlomDutch Alzheimer's Society, Amersfoort, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2962-2247
Berno van MeijelDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2198-1528
Anneke L FranckeDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7953-0693
Alzheimer Nederland · NLNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research · NLTrimbos Institute · NLVrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLParnassia Groep · NLReumaNederland · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline contacts with a health professional have the potential to support family caregivers of people with dementia.

objectiveThe goal of the research was to study the effects of an online self-management support intervention in helping family caregivers deal with behavior changes of a relative with dementia. The intervention-involving among others personal email contacts with a dementia nurse-was compared with online interventions without these email contacts.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted with 81 family caregivers of people with dementia who live at home. Participants were randomly assigned to a (1) major self-management support intervention consisting of personal email contacts with a specialist dementia nurse, online videos, and e-bulletins; (2) medium intervention consisting only of online videos and e-bulletins; or (3) minor intervention consisting of only the e-bulletins. The primary outcome was family caregivers' self-efficacy in dealing with behavior changes of the relative with dementia. Secondary outcomes were family caregivers' reports of behavior problems in the people with dementia and the quality of the relationship between the family caregiver and the person with dementia. Measurements were performed at the baseline and at 6 (T1) and 12 weeks (T2) after the baseline. A mixed-model analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of the 3 intervention arms.

resultsFamily caregivers participating in the major intervention involving email contacts showed no statistically significant differences in self-efficacy after the intervention compared with the minor intervention involving only e-bulletins (difference -0.02, P=.99). In the adjusted analysis, the medium intervention (involving videos and e-bulletins) showed a negative trend over time (difference -4.21, P=.09) and at T1 (difference -4.71, P=.07) compared with the minor intervention involving only e-bulletins. No statistical differences were found between the intervention arms in terms of the reported behavior problems and the quality of the relationship between the family caregiver and the person with dementia.

conclusionsThe expectation that an online self-management support intervention involving email contacts would lead to positive effects and be more effective than online interventions without personal email contacts was not borne out. One explanation might be related to the fact that not all family caregivers who were assigned to that intervention actually made use of the opportunity for personal email contact. The online videos were also not always viewed. To obtain more definite conclusions, future research involving extra efforts to reach higher use rates is required.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry NTR6237; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6237 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6v0S4fxTC). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/resprot.8365.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversDementiaFamilyFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf-ManagementYoung Adultdementiafamily caregiversinterventionself-managementsupport

Identifiers

PMID32130142
PMCPMC7064946
OpenAlexW2975636895

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.