Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
An Individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy App for People with Dementia and Carers: Results from a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)
Rai HK, Schneider J, Orrell M.. Clinical interventions in aging, 2021-12-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background There is a lack of digital resources that support the cognition and quality of life (QoL) of people with dementia. The individual cognitive stimulation therapy application (iCST app) aims to provide cognitive stimulation and social interaction to people with dementia and carers through interactive touch-screen technology. This study set out to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale, randomized controlled trial (RCT) with the iCST app. Methods This was a single blind, feasibility RCT including people with mild to moderate dementia and their carers. Multiple trial components were assessed including recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity and usability, and acceptability of the outcome assessments which included measures of cognition and QoL. A sample of the intervention group was invited to a semi-structured post-trial interview to examine the experience of using the iCST app. Results Sixty-one dyads were randomised to the iCST app (n = 31) or treatment-as-usual (TAU) control group (n = 30) for 11 weeks. In the iCST app group, 77% used the intervention for 20 minutes or more each week. Carers using the iCST app rated their QoL better at follow-up 2 compared to the TAU control group (EQ-5D, MD = 7.69, 95% CI = 2.32-13.06, p = 0.006). No significant differences were found on the other outcome measures. Conclusion The iCST app was deemed usable and enjoyable. Most participants completed the activities more quickly than anticipated and did not have enough activities to continue using the app frequently. Expansion of the iCST app is needed to maintain engagement for longer. Findings indicate that computerised cognitive stimulation can be beneficial, and a large-scale RCT is feasible with modifications to trial components. The results are relevant to researchers, software developers, policy-makers, people with dementia and carers who are looking to be involved in such interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03282877. Registered on 19 July 2017.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rai, H. K., Schneider, J., & Orrell, M. (2021). An Individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy App for People with Dementia and Carers: Results from a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Clinical interventions in aging. https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s323994
Vancouver
Rai HK, Schneider J, Orrell M. An Individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy App for People with Dementia and Carers: Results from a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Clinical interventions in aging. 2021. doi:10.2147/cia.s323994. PMID: 35221680.
BibTeX
@article{rai2021-35221680,
author = {Rai, H. K. and Schneider, J. and Orrell, M.},
title = {{An Individual Cognitive Stimulation Therapy App for People with Dementia and Carers: Results from a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT)}},
journal = {Clinical interventions in aging},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.2147/cia.s323994},
pmid = {35221680},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s323994}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Sixty-one dyads were randomised to the iCST app (n = 31) or treatment-as-usual (TAU) control group (n = 30) for 11 weeks.
- Carers using the iCST app rated their QoL better at follow-up 2 compared to the TAU control group (EQ-5D, MD = 7.69, 95% CI = 2.32-13.06, p = 0.006).
- No significant differences were found on the other outcome measures.
- Findings indicate that computerised cognitive stimulation can be beneficial, and a large-scale RCT is feasible with modifications to trial components.
- The results are relevant to researchers, software developers, policy-makers, people with dementia and carers who are looking to be involved in such interventions.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants31
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 79/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical interventions in aging) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomised controlled trial |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 31 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (as stated in the record) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35221680) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 46 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100. |
| Total | 79 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “feasibility”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “feasibility”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.