Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2025
Individualized Coordination and Empowerment for Care Partners of Persons with Dementia (ICECaP): Feasibility and acceptability.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized clinical trial of the individualized coordination and empowerment for care partners of persons with dementia (ICECaP) intervention: impact on preparedness for caregiving.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Trial
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformal care partners (CPs) of persons with dementia (PWDs), who are at risk of negative health outcomes, benefit from psychosocial interventions. Individualized Coordination and Empowerment for CPs of PWDs (ICECaP) is a year-long, multi-component intervention comprised of in-person and telehealth psychoeducation and emotional support from dementia care coordinators (DCCs). ICECaP feasibility and acceptability were examined during a pilot randomized controlled trial.
methodFeasibility was determined by study enrollment (relative to screening) and study completion. Acceptability was examined with CP-rated intervention satisfaction and DCC-completed surveys of CP engagement, using one-sample Wilcoxon tests to evaluate differences between observed and null hypothesized medians. Implementation fidelity was also evaluated. Analyses of variance and Chi-square tests identified demographic differences in study completion and DCC-reported CP engagement.
resultsStudy enrollment (91.4 %) and study completion (85.4 %) were both high when compared to findings from a recent meta-analysis of CP psychosocial interventions. Completion was similar across groups (ICECaP vs. control) and demographics. CPs and DCCs communicated twice monthly, most commonly via email. On average, DCCs spent 68 minutes total per CP monthly; the number and duration of contacts varied widely. CPs responded positively on the satisfaction survey, and DCCs mostly responded positively about CP communication, engagement, and responsiveness. Communication was reportedly more difficult with employed CPs and CPs with ≥16 years of education.
conclusionICECaP was both feasible and acceptable. DCC time spent with CPs occurred primarily virtually and varied widely, reflecting both individualization within the intervention and the unpredictability of dementia care for CPs. CLINICALTRIALS: govNCT04495686.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.