Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32583858›Full record

SynthesisThe Gerontologist2021

A Core Outcome Set for Nonpharmacological Community-Based Interventions for People Living With Dementia at Home: A Systematic Review of Outcome Measurement Instruments.

Andrew J E Harding, Hazel Morbey, Faraz Ahmed, Carol Opdebeeck, Ruth Elvish, Iracema Leroi, Paula R Williamson, John Keady, Siobhan T Reilly

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Gerontologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Outcome measures for Alzheimer's disease: A global inter-societal Delphi consensus.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Andrew J E HardingFaculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, UK.
Hazel MorbeyFaculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, UK.
Faraz AhmedFaculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, UK.
Carol OpdebeeckManchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Ruth ElvishDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, UK.
Iracema LeroiSchool of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Paula R WilliamsonMedical Research Council North West Hub for Trials Methodology Research, University of Liverpool, UK.
John KeadyDivision of Nursing, Midwifery & Social Work, University of Manchester, UK.
Siobhan T ReillyFaculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesIt is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders' value. We attained consensus from more than 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review, we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews, and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and COSMIN databases. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency, and responsiveness. We held a coresearch workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings.

resultsIn total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these, 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the core outcome set (COS) items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The "best" available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons.

Indexed as

DementiaHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAlzheimer’s diseaseCore outcome setDementiaMeasurementOutcome

Identifiers

PMID32583858
PMCPMC8599310

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.