Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33755548›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021

Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT.

Rebecca Gathercole, Rosie Bradley, Emma Harper, Lucy Davies, Lynn Pank, Natalie Lam, Anna Davies, Emma Talbot, Emma Hooper, Rachel Winson and 22 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

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

32 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca GathercoleDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6380-2655
Rosie BradleyMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0758-4905
Emma HarperMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5651-6258
Lucy DaviesMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6632-7215
Lynn PankMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6398-6565
Natalie LamMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8591-444X
Anna DaviesSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0743-6547
Emma TalbotNorfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Stowmarket, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7614-9683
Emma HooperLancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4059-6035
Rachel WinsonCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Bethany ScuttDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0456-2556
Victoria Ordonez MontanoHertfordshire Community NHS Trust, Watford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3500-1922
Samantha NunnCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2853-9652
Grace LavelleDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3768-1797
Matthew LariviereCentre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6901-3115
Shashivadan HiraniSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1577-8806
Stefano BriniSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1909-1796
Andrew BatemanSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2547-5921
Peter BenthamBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6443-3353
Alistair BurnsFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9837-0645
Barbara DunkSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6363-5009
Kirsty ForsythSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6732-1699
Chris FoxNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9480-5704
Catherine HendersonCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4340-4702
Martin KnappCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1427-0215
Iracema LeroiGlobal Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-1822-3643
Stanton NewmanSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6712-6079
John O'BrienDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0837-5080
Fiona PolandSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0003-6911
John WoolhamNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health & Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3128-7756
Richard GrayMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4440-574X
Robert HowardDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3071-2338
University of Oxford · GBCity, University of London · GBKing's College London · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust · GBCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust · GBHertfordshire Community NHS Trust · GBNorfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust · GBQueen Margaret University · GBSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust · GBTrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Essex · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/50/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness.

objectivesThis trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated.

designThis was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

settingThis trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities.

participantsParticipants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare.

interventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package).

main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview.

resultsOf 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; LIMITATIONS: Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events.

conclusionsA full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants' health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants' EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. FUTURE WORK: Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017.

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

DementiaSelf-Help DevicesActivities of Daily LivingAdultHumansIndependent LivingQuality of LifeACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVINGANXIETYCAREGIVERSCOST–BENEFIT ANALYSISDEMENTIAINDEPENDENT LIVINGINSTITUTIONALISATIONQUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEARSQUALITY OF LIFETECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Identifiers

PMID33755548
PMCPMC8020444
OpenAlexW3138123109

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.