Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42831295›Full record

Trial reportAustralasian journal on ageing2026

Cost-Consequence Analysis of a Dementia Specialist Training Program for Home Care Workers: Results From a Stepped-Wedge Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial.

Yared Belete Belay, Anita Goh, Briony Dow, Christa Dang, Steven Savvas, Frances Batchelor, Lidia Engel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Australasian journal on ageing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Yared Belete BelayHealth Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5473-3857
Anita GohThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0159-5926
Briony DowThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4186-314X
Christa DangThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Steven SavvasThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Frances BatchelorThe University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7302-7293
Lidia EngelHealth Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7959-3149

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis paper reports the health economic component of the broader Promoting Independence Through Quality Dementia Care at Home (PITCH). The broader PITCH trial primarily evaluated the effect of dementia training on home care workers' competence in providing dementia care; this analysis evaluated intervention costs and selected secondary client and caregiver outcomes.

methodsThe PITCH intervention was tested via a multi-site national pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomised clinical trial, conducted across three Australian states. A micro-costing approach was used to estimate intervention and resource use costs. Secondary outcomes for clients and caregivers, including quality of life (QoL), caregiver burden and dyadic interaction, were assessed. Means (SDs) described costs and outcomes, with linear and multilevel mixed-effects regression used to estimate crude and adjusted mean differences, respectively.

resultsThere were no significant improvements in most client and caregiver health, QoL, caregiver burden or dyadic interaction outcomes during the intervention phase, with decreases in proxy-reported Dementia QoL Utility (DEMQOL-U) and client self-reported visual analogue scale (EQ VAS). Improvements in caregiver burden and dyadic interaction were observed but were not statistically significant. Total costs increased from AU$68,925 in the control to AU$133,660 in the intervention phase, with an adjusted mean difference of AU$67,146 (95% CI: AU$16,957 to AU$117,334).

conclusionsThis health economic analysis should be interpreted separately from and alongside, the main PITCH trial findings on the primary outcome of home care workers' competence. Within this secondary analysis, PITCH was associated with higher total costs during the intervention phase and no clear evidence of improvement in the selected secondary client and caregiver outcomes.

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaHealth Care CostsHome Care ServicesHome Health AidesInservice TrainingAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisCost of IllnessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of Lifecost‐effectivenessdementiahealth outcomeshomecare workersinformal care

Identifiers

PMID42831295
PMCPMC13635955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.