Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32216870›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: the EPIC cluster RCT.

Claire A Surr, Ivana Holloway, Rebecca Ea Walwyn, Alys W Griffiths, David Meads, Rachael Kelley, Adam Martin, Vicki McLellan, Clive Ballard, Jane Fossey and 17 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Data resource profile: the virtual international care homes trials archive (VICHTA).International journal of population data science · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  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

27 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Claire A SurrCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Ivana HollowayClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rebecca Ea WalwynClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Alys W GriffithsCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
David MeadsLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rachael KelleyCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Adam MartinLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Vicki McLellanClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Clive BallardUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Jane FosseyPsychological Services, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Natasha BurnleyCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Lynn ChenowethUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Byron CreeseUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK.
Murna DownsCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Lucy GarrodPsychological Services, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Elizabeth H GrahamAcademic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Amanda Lilley-KelleyClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Joanne McDermidWolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, King's College London, London, UK.
Holly MillardPsychological Services, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Devon PerfectPsychological Services, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Louise RobinsonInstitute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Olivia RobinsonCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Emily ShoesmithCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Najma SiddiqiDepartment of Health Sciences, Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK.
Graham StokesHC One, Darlington, UK.
Daphne WallaceCentre for Dementia Research, School of Health and Community Studies, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Amanda J FarrinClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Leeds Beckett University · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBBradford District Care NHS Foundation Trust · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBDarlington College · GBKing's College London · GBNewcastle Hospitals - Campus for Ageing and Vitality · GBUniversity of Bradford · GBUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Department of Health 11/15/13
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe quality of care for people with dementia in care homes is of concern. Interventions that can improve care outcomes are required.

objectiveTo investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation and improving care outcomes for people living with dementia in care homes, versus usual care.

designA pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with an open-cohort design, follow-up at 6 and 16 months, integrated cost-effectiveness analysis and process evaluation. Clusters were not blinded to allocation. The primary end point was completed by staff proxy and independent assessors.

settingStratified randomisation of 50 care homes to the intervention and control groups on a 3 : 2 ratio by type, size, staff exposure to dementia training and recruiting hub.

participantsFifty care homes were randomised (intervention,

interventionTwo staff members from each intervention home were trained to use DCM and were asked to carry out three DCM cycles; the first was supported by an external expert.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory), measured at 16 months. Secondary outcomes included resident behaviours and quality of life.

resultsThere were 675 residents in the final analysis (intervention, LIMITATIONS: The primary completion of resident outcomes was by staff proxy, owing to self-report difficulties for residents with advanced dementia. Clusters were not blinded to allocation, although supportive analyses suggested that any reporting bias was not clinically important.

conclusionsThere was no benefit of DCM over control for any outcomes. The implementation of DCM by care home staff was suboptimal compared with the protocol in the majority of homes. FUTURE WORK: Alternative models of DCM implementation should be considered that do not rely solely on leadership by care home staff.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN82288852.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

AnxietyQuality of Health CareResidential FacilitiesAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisDementiaFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeUnited KingdomAGITATIONALZHEIMER’S DISEASECOST–BENEFIT ANALYSISDEMENTIAECONOMICS (MEDICAL)FOLLOW-UP STUDIESOUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE)

Identifiers

PMID32216870
PMCPMC7132533
OpenAlexW3013251377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.