Trial reportBMC geriatrics2026
Talking Mats and self-perceived involvement for service recipients with dementia in Swedish home care services: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOlder people with dementia are regularly excluded from decision-making processes and their wishes and preferences for care are often not respected. The aim of this study was to analyze whether the use of Talking Mats® (TM) help older service recipients with mild to moderate dementia to feel more involved in and satisfied with needs assessment and planning conversations within Swedish home care services, compared to usual conversation methods.
methodsThis study employed a post-test only, two-armed parallel group randomized controlled trial design. The use of TM was evaluated in comparison with a control group using usual conversation methods. Inclusion criteria were service recipients from participating municipalities, ≥ 65 years scoring 12-23p on the MMSE. Randomization was conducted in blocks by site (n = 3) with allocation set at 50% per arm with concealed allocation. Once participants were randomized to study arm blinding was not possible. Post-tests were conducted with service recipients after conversations with care managers and nursing assistants. The impact of staff’s perceived acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of TM was assessed.
results101 older home care services recipients were recruited, 51 in the TM group and 50 in the control group. Non-response was relatively high > 10% in both groups. Total attrition showed 24% of the service recipients with dementia did not complete data collection following conversations with CMs, and 35% with NAs. High involvement and satisfaction were found in both TM and control group in conversations with care managers and nurse assistants. No difference between groups was detected. Dementia severity was significantly and positively correlated with self-perceived involvement.
conclusionsThere were no significant differences between TM and control groups regarding self-perceived involvement and satisfaction after conversations with care managers and nurse assistants.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05 561,998. Registered on September 28, 2022.
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.