Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/27674
Title: Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial
Authors: Surr, CA
Holloway, I
Walwyn, REA
Griffiths, AW
Meads, D
Martin, A
Kelley, R
Ballard, C
Fossey, J
Burnley, N
Chenoweth, L
Creese, B
Downs, M
Garrod, L
Graham, EH
Lilley-Kelly, A
McDermid, J
McLellan, V
Millard, H
Perfect, D
Robinson, L
Robinson, O
Shoesmith, E
Siddiqi, N
Stokes, G
Wallace, D
Farrin, AJ
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease;institutional care/residential care;intervention;long-term care;person-centred care;health economic evaluation;practice development;psychosocial interventions
Issue Date: 13-Apr-2020
Publisher: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group)
Citation: Surr, C.A. et al. (2021) 'Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial', Aging and Mental Health, 25 (8), pp. 1410 - 1423. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1745144.
Abstract: Objectives: Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. Method: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. Results: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was –2.11 points (95% CI –4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. Conclusion: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.
Description: Data availability statement: Data from this study for use for further research may be obtained by contacting the corresponding author.
Supplemental material is available online at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13607863.2020.1745144#supplemental-material-section .
URI: https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/27674
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2020.1745144
ISSN: 1360-7863
Other Identifiers: ORCID iD: Claire A. Surr https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4312-6661
ORCID iD: Natasha Burnley https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4174-4084
ORCID iD: Byron Creese https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6490-6037
Appears in Collections:Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdfCopyright © 2020 Leeds Beckett University. Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.3.02 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons