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.

62/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 62 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Background Dementia is a progressive disease that decreases quality of life of persons with dementia and is associated with high societal costs. The burden of caring for persons with dementia also decreases the quality of life of family caregivers. The objective of this study was to assess the societal cost-effectiveness of Namaste Care Family program in comparison with usual care in nursing home residents with advanced dementia. Methods Nursing homes were randomized to either Namaste Care Family program or usual care. Outcome measures of the cluster-randomized trial in 231 residents included Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID) and the Gain in Alzheimer Care Instrument (GAIN) for family caregivers over 12 months of follow-up. Health states were measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire which were translated into utilities. QALYs were calculated by multiplying the amount of time a participant spent in a specific health state with the utility score associated with that health state. Healthcare utilization costs were estimated using standard unit costs, while intervention costs were estimated using a bottom-up approach. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapped multilevel models were used after multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated. Results The Namaste Care Family program was more effective than usual care in terms of QUALID (- 0.062, 95%CI: - 0.40 to 0.28), QALY (0.0017, 95%CI: - 0.059 to 0.063) and GAIN (0.075, 95%CI: - 0.20 to 0.35). Total societal costs were lower for the Namaste Care Family program as compared to usual care (- 552 €, 95%CI: - 2920 to 1903). However, these differences were not statistically significant. The probability of cost-effectiveness at a ceiling ratio of 0 €/unit of effect extra was 0.70 for the QUALID, QALY and GAIN. Conclusions The Namaste Care Family program is dominant over usual care and, thus, cost-effective, although statistical uncertainty was considerable. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register ( http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/index.asp , identifier: NL5570, date of registration: 2016/03/23).

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

APA 7th

El Alili, M., Smaling, H. J. A., Joling, K. J., Achterberg, W. P., Francke, A. L., Bosmans, J. E., et al. (2020). Cost-effectiveness of the Namaste care family program for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in comparison with usual care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC health services research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05570-2

Vancouver

El Alili M, Smaling HJA, Joling KJ, Achterberg WP, Francke AL, Bosmans JE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the Namaste care family program for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in comparison with usual care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMC health services research. 2020. doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05570-2. PMID: 32887591.

BibTeX

@article{elalili2020-32887591,
  author  = {El Alili, M. and Smaling, H. J. A. and Joling, K. J. and Achterberg, W. P. and Francke, A. L. and Bosmans, J. E. and van der Steen, J. T.},
  title   = {{Cost-effectiveness of the Namaste care family program for nursing home residents with advanced dementia in comparison with usual care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial}},
  journal = {BMC health services research},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1186/s12913-020-05570-2},
  pmid    = {32887591},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05570-2}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a trial. Participants are assigned to a treatment or a comparison, so the key questions are who was enrolled, whether the comparison group got a placebo or nothing, how long people were followed, and whether the result is on a measure that matters to patients or on a biomarker. Open-label and small trials can overstate benefit.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Background Dementia is a progressive disease that decreases quality of life of persons with dementia and is associated with high societal costs.
QALYs were calculated by multiplying the amount of time a participant spent in a specific health state with the utility score associated with that health state.
Results The Namaste Care Family program was more effective than usual care in terms of QUALID (- 0.062, 95%CI: - 0.40 to 0.28), QALY (0.0017, 95%CI: - 0.059 to 0.063) and GAIN (0.075, 95%CI: - 0.20 to 0.35).
Total societal costs were lower for the Namaste Care Family program as compared to usual care (- 552 €, 95%CI: - 2920 to 1903).
However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Why it matters

The Namaste Care Family programme for nursing home residents with advanced dementia was more effective than usual care on some quality-of-life measures, but the confidence intervals included no difference. This concerns quality of life and cost, not curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Study designrandomized controlled trial
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 62/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and effect reported because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC health services research)
Journal's citation record	2 / 4	BMC Health Services Research: journal h-index 218 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	11 / 12	A randomized 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	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
Randomized / blinded	1 / 2	Randomized (as stated in the record)
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 32 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	4.0 citations a year over 8 year(s) since 2020
Impact for its field and year	3 / 6	Cited 3.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	1 / 6	Cited by 2 other studies in this library
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 16 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Jenny Theodora van der Steen: h-index 56 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	1 / 3	Radboud University Nijmegen: institution h-index 1,143 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 8 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32887591)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	62 / 100	—

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

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

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

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

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “nursing”

995 studies in the library carry the topic tag “nursing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 995 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →