Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38796316›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2024

A process evaluation of the NIDUS-Professional dementia training intervention for UK homecare workers.

Daniel Kelleher, Karen Windle, Rebecca Randell, Kathryn Lord, Larisa Duffy, Amirah Akhtar, Jessica Budgett, Sedigheh Zabihi, Sara Banks, Penny Rapaport and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

20 authors.

Daniel KelleherCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2659-1606
Karen WindleCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.
Rebecca RandellFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.
Kathryn LordCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.
Larisa DuffyDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Amirah AkhtarCentre for Applied Dementia Studies, Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Richmond Road, Bradford, BD7 1DP, UK.
Jessica BudgettCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Sedigheh ZabihiCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Sara BanksCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.
Penny RapaportDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Teresa LeeDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Julie BarberDepartment of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK.
Vasiliki OrgetaDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8643-5061
Jill ManthorpeThe Policy Institute at King's, King's College London, London, UK.
Kate WaltersResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Kenneth RockwoodDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Briony DowNational Ageing Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Juanita HoeGeller Institute of Ageing and Memory, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of West London, London, UK.
Sube BanerjeeFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Claudia CooperCentre for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2777-7616

Funding

Alzheimer's Society 330Centre for Applied Dementia Studies at the University of BradfordDementia and Neurodegenerative Disease Policy Research Unit-Queen Mary NIHR206110Department of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNIHR Senior Investigator AwardNIHR Senior Investigator Award NIHR205009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis process evaluation was conducted in parallel to the randomised controlled feasibility trial of NIDUS-Professional, a manualised remote dementia training intervention for homecare workers (HCWs), delivered alongside an individualised intervention for clients living with dementia and their family carers (NIDUS-Family). The process evaluation reports on: (i) intervention reach, dose and fidelity; (ii) contexts influencing agency engagement and (iii) alignment of findings with theoretical assumptions about how the intervention might produce change.

methodsWe report proportions of eligible HCWs receiving any intervention (reach), number of sessions attended (dose; attending ≥4/6 main sessions was predefined as adhering), intervention fidelity and adherence of clients and carers to NIDUS-Family (attending all 6-8 planned sessions). We interviewed HCWs, managers, family carers and facilitators. We integrated and thematically analysed, at the homecare agency level, qualitative interview and intervention recording data.

results32/141 (23%) of eligible HCWs and 7/42 (17%) of family carers received any intervention; most who did adhered to the intervention (89% and 71%). Intervention fidelity was high. We analysed interviews with 20/44 HCWs, 3/4 managers and 3/7 family carers, as well as intervention recordings involving 32/44 HCWs. All agencies reported structural challenges in supporting intervention delivery. Agencies with greater management buy-in had higher dose and reach. HCWs valued NIDUS-Professional for enabling group reflection and peer support, providing practical, actionable care strategies and increasing their confidence as practitioners.

conclusionNIDUS-Professional was valued by HCWs. Agency management, culture and priorities were key barriers to implementation; we discuss how to address these in a future trial.

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaHome Care ServicesHome Health AidesAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedProcess Assessment, Health CareUnited Kingdomcarersdementiahomecareimplementationolder peopleprocess evaluationtraining

Identifiers

PMID38796316
PMCPMC11127770

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.