ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
A feasibility randomised controlled trial of Empowered Conversations: training family carers to enhance their relationships and communication with people living with dementia.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe primary objective of this UK-based trial was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled evaluation trial of Empowered Conversations (EC). EC is a 6-session group psychosocial intervention for informal (family) care partners of people living with dementia. The two key feasibility objectives were to establish whether recruitment levels and retention to follow-up were sufficient for a multi-centre evaluation trial to be feasible. Secondary objectives were as follows: to estimate potential effectiveness on a range of candidate primary outcome measures and their standard deviations; to identify the most appropriate primary outcome measure for a multi-centre evaluation trial; to obtain additional evidence regarding proof of concept; to establish the optimum way of evaluating cost-effectiveness in the evaluation trial.
methodsThe feasibility trial used a pragmatic data-collector blind parallel two-group RCT design with two arms (EC intervention plus treatment as usual, and treatment as usual waitlist control). There was a 2:1 allocation in favour of the EC arm. Participants completed baseline outcome measures including measures of their psychological health, quality of life and service use. These were repeated after 6 months.
resultsSeventy-five care partners were recruited. The average number of people randomised per month was 8.9, consistent with the pre-specified average recruitment rate of 6 to 10 carers per month sufficient for proceeding to a multi-centre trial. A total of 58 (77%) participants were retained at 6 months follow-up meeting the amber stop-go criterion (65%-<80%; green ≥ 80% retention).
conclusionThe trial indicated the feasibility of progressing to an evaluation trial of EC. Recruitment was at a sufficient level for a multi-centre trial across three proposed sites. Retention to follow-up was close to the green criterion, and ways of increasing retention in the evaluation trial have been identified.
trial registrationISRCTN15261686; Registered 02/03/2022 https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15261686.
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.