alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Costs and economics

Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: cost-effectiveness analysis

Knapp M, Thorgrimsen L, Patel A, Spector A, Hallam A, Woods B, Orrell M.. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2006-06-01

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 70 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

Background Psychological therapy groups for people with dementia are widely used, but their cost-effectiveness has not been explored. Aims To investigate the cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) programme for people with dementia as part of a randomised controlled trial. Method A total of 91 people with dementia, living in care homes or the community, received a CST group intervention twice weekly for 8 weeks; 70 participants with dementia received treatment as usual. Service use was recorded 8 weeks before and during the 8-week intervention and costs were calculated. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with cognition as the primary outcome, and quality of life as the secondary outcome. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were plotted. Results Cognitive stimulation therapy has benefits for cognition and quality of life in dementia, and costs were not different between the groups. Under reasonable assumptions, there is a high probability that CST is more cost-effective than treatment as usual, with regard to both outcome measures. Conclusions Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia has effectiveness advantages over, and may be more cost-effective than, treatment as usual.

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

APA 7th

Knapp, M., Thorgrimsen, L., Patel, A., Spector, A., Hallam, A., Woods, B., et al. (2006). Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: cost-effectiveness analysis. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.105.010561

Vancouver

Knapp M, Thorgrimsen L, Patel A, Spector A, Hallam A, Woods B, et al. Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: cost-effectiveness analysis. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 2006. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.105.010561. PMID: 16738349.

BibTeX

@article{knapp2006-16738349,
  author  = {Knapp, M. and Thorgrimsen, L. and Patel, A. and Spector, A. and Hallam, A. and Woods, B. and Orrell, M.},
  title   = {{Cognitive stimulation therapy for people with dementia: cost-effectiveness analysis}},
  journal = {The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science},
  year    = {2006},
  doi     = {10.1192/bjp.bp.105.010561},
  pmid    = {16738349},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.105.010561}
}

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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

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

Study details

How this study scored 70/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 2 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 43 of the 61 points it could be judged on, which is 70 of 100. Total 70 of 100.43 of the 61 points we could judge = 70 of 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 70 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science)
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 1 / 5 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 1 / 4 91 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 1 / 2 Randomised (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 2 / 3 PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16738349)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 43 / 61 Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 61 points we could judge it on is 70 out of 100.
Total 70 / 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 Costs and economics

Also tagged “assisted-living”

199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →