AIMS: We examined whether Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) or the VIPS practice model (VPM) is more effective than education of the nursing home staff about dementia (control group) in reducing agitation and other neuropsychiatric symptoms as well as in enhancing the quality of life among nursing home patients. METHODS: A 10-month three-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial compared DCM and VPM with control. Of 624 nursing home patients with dementia, 446 completed follow-up assessments. The primary outcome was the change on the Brief Agitation Rating Scale (BARS). Secondary outcomes were changes on the 10-item version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) and the Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) scale. RESULTS: Changes in the BARS score did not differ significantly between the DCM and the control group or between the VPM and the control group after 10 months. Positive differences were found for changes in the secondary outcomes: the NPI-Q sum score as well as the subscales NPI-Q agitation and NPI-Q psychosis were in favour of both interventions versus control, the QUALID score was in favour of DCM versus control and the CSDD score was in favour of VPM versus control. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to find a significant effect of both interventions on the primary outcome. Positive effects on the secondary outcomes indicate that the methods merit further investigation.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: We examined whether Dementia Care Mapping (DCM) or the VIPS practice model (VPM) is more effective than education of the nursing home staff about dementia (control group) in reducing agitation and other neuropsychiatric symptoms as well as in enhancing the quality of life among nursing home patients. METHODS: A 10-month three-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial compared DCM and VPM with control. Of 624 nursing home patients with dementia, 446 completed follow-up assessments. The primary outcome was the change on the Brief Agitation Rating Scale (BARS). Secondary outcomes were changes on the 10-item version of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) and the Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) scale. RESULTS: Changes in the BARS score did not differ significantly between the DCM and the control group or between the VPM and the control group after 10 months. Positive differences were found for changes in the secondary outcomes: the NPI-Q sum score as well as the subscales NPI-Q agitation and NPI-Q psychosis were in favour of both interventions versus control, the QUALID score was in favour of DCM versus control and the CSDD score was in favour of VPM versus control. CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to find a significant effect of both interventions on the primary outcome. Positive effects on the secondary outcomes indicate that the methods merit further investigation.
Authors: Elise A Weamer; Mary Ann A DeMichele-Sweet; Yona K Cloonan; Oscar L Lopez; Robert A Sweet Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Elizaveta Sopina; Lynn Chenoweth; Tim Luckett; Meera Agar; Georgina M Luscombe; Patricia M Davidson; Constance D Pond; Jane Phillips; Stephen Goodall Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Geertje van de Ven; Irena Draskovic; Elke van Herpen; Raymond T C M Koopmans; Rogier Donders; Sytse U Zuidema; Eddy M M Adang; Myrra J F J Vernooij-Dassen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240