This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

71/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 71 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To evaluate whether 6 months of CDCM is associated with improved patient clinical outcomes and caregiver burden and is cost-effective compared with usual care over 36 months. Results A total of 308 patients, of whom 221 (71.8%) received CDCM (mean [SD] age, 80.1 [5.3] years; 142 [64.3%] women) and 87 (28.2%) received usual care (mean [SD] age, 79.2 [4.5] years; 50 [57.5%] women), were included in the clinical effectiveness analyses, and 428 (303 [70.8%] CDCM, 125 [29.2%] usual care) were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis (which included 120 patients who had died). Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P Conclusions and relevance In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, CDCM was associated with improved patient, caregiver, and health system-relevant outcomes over 36 months beyond the intervention period.

Key findings

Objective To evaluate whether 6 months of CDCM is associated with improved patient clinical outcomes and caregiver burden and is cost-effective compared with usual care over 36 months.
Results A total of 308 patients, of whom 221 (71.8%) received CDCM (mean [SD] age, 80.1 [5.3] years; 142 [64.3%] women) and 87 (28.2%) received usual care (mean [SD] age, 79.2 [4.5] years; 50 [57.5%] women), were included in the clinical effectiveness analyses, and 428 (303 [70.8%] CDCM, 125 [29.2%] usual care) were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis (which included 120 patients who had died).
Participants receiving CDCM showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms (adjusted mean difference [AMD] in NPI score, -10.26 [95% CI, -16.95 to -3.58]; P = .003; Cohen d, -0.78 [95% CI, -1.09 to -0.46]), better mental health (AMD in SF-12 Mental Component Summary score, 2.26 [95% CI, 0.31-4.21]; P = .02; Cohen d, 0.26 [95% CI, -0.11 to 0.51]), and lower caregiver burden (AMD in BIZA-D score, -0.59 [95% CI, -0.81 to -0.37]; P < .001; Cohen d, -0.71 [95% CI, -1.03 to -0.40]).

Why it matters

In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, participants receiving collaborative dementia care management showed significantly fewer behavioral and psychological symptoms, better mental health, and lower caregiver burden over 36 months. It addresses care outcomes and cost-effectiveness rather than curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →

Study details

Study designRCT
Participants428
Effect size0.137 QALYs gained; 3,186 euros per QALY; NPI difference -10.26 points
Evidence strengthHigh

Limitations

Generalisability is limited mainly to patients with mild cognitive impairment in a primarily rural German setting; data validity may be limited by participants' cognitive impairment; groups were imbalanced with fewer controls; the same nurses collected data and delivered the intervention; dementia was identified by screening rather than full diagnosis; and the sample size was powered for primary outcomes only.

How this study scored 71/100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. We have no data on free to read, so that was left out: it earned 70 of the 98 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (JAMA Network Open)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	JAMA Network Open: journal h-index 235 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
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	4 / 5	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	428 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	1 / 2	Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 15 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	3.8 citations a year over 4 year(s) since 2024
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 4.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	2 / 6	Cited by 3 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 15 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Wolfgang U. Hoffmann: h-index 57 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of California, San Francisco: institution h-index 1,915 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 8 institution(s) in 3 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38967926)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	70 / 98	Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 70 of the 98 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100.
Total	71 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — PubMed Central lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 10 Oct 2026).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Michalowsky, B., Blotenberg, I., Platen, M., Teipel, S., Kilimann, I., Portacolone, E., et al. (2024). Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Dementia Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19282

Vancouver

Michalowsky B, Blotenberg I, Platen M, Teipel S, Kilimann I, Portacolone E, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Dementia Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19282. PMID: 38967926.

BibTeX

@article{michalowsky2024-38967926,
  author  = {Michalowsky, B. and Blotenberg, I. and Platen, M. and Teipel, S. and Kilimann, I. and Portacolone, E. and Bohlken, J. and Rädke, A. and Buchholz, M. and Scharf, A. and Muehlichen, F. and Xie, F. and others},
  title   = {{Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Collaborative Dementia Care: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial}},
  journal = {JAMA Network Open},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19282},
  pmid    = {38967926},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19282}
}

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Later studies that cite this one

3 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.

Related studies in Costs and economics

Also tagged “care”

996 studies in the library carry the topic tag “care”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 996 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →