ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
The cost of non-drug interventions that improve function and reduce dementia-related behaviors.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the net cost of non-drug interventions that maintain or improve a person with dementia's physical function and/or reduce challenging behaviors. Cost data are needed to inform the adoption of non-drug interventions in health systems and the development of policies to incentivize their use.
methodsWe modified a person-level microsimulation to model the cost of four non-drug interventions relative to usual care: Collaborative Care, Care of Persons with Dementia in their Environments (COPE), Tailored Activity Program (TAP), and Skills2Care. We also conducted a value of information analysis to quantify the optimal sample size of conducting a new randomized trial that would reduce uncertainty on the cost savings of each intervention from a societal perspective. Finally, we conducted sensitivity analyses.
resultsCollaborative Care, TAP and COPE were cost savings compared to usual care (-$572, -$1,816, and -$5,262, respectively). Skills2Care results in a $89 net increase in cost compared to usual care. The value of information analysis identified the optimal sample size of a potential future study: Skills2Care (optimal n = 8,560), TAP (optimal n = 5,650), COPE (optimal n = 3,910) and Collaborative Care (optimal n = 3,630). In one-way sensitivity analyses, when we applied a pessimistic assumption for the treatment effect, COPE and TAP were still cost saving, while Collaborative Care cost more than usual care. Conclusions did not materially change in sensitivity analyses that varied treatment cost.
conclusionsNon-drug dementia care interventions that maintain or improve a person with dementia's function and/or reduce challenging behaviors present a viable clinical / economic model of care for health systems.
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.