Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Effectiveness of a tablet-based intervention for people living with dementia in primary care-A cluster randomized controlled trial
Lech S, Gellert P, Spang RP, Voigt-Antons JN, Huscher D, O'Sullivan JL, Schuster J.. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2023-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Primary care physicians (PCP) play a key role in the care of people living with dementia. However, the implementation and practicability of the German S3 Dementia Guideline in primary care remain unclear. The main objective of the present study was to evaluate an intervention for improving guideline-based dementia care in primary care. Design A two-arm, 9-month follow-up cluster-randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups. Setting 28 primary care practices in Berlin and the surrounding area in Germany. Participants A total of N = 28 PCP, N = 91 people living with dementia, and N = 88 informal caregivers participated in the trial. Intervention A tablet-based intervention to improve adherence to the German S3 Dementia Guideline in primary care was compared to a control group (care as usual plus a handbook on dementia). MeasurementsAdherence to dementia guideline (primary outcome) was measured on PCP' (23 items) and informal caregivers' level (19 items) with a self-developed checklist. Secondary outcomes (quality of life, neuropsychiatric symptoms, activities of daily living, general health status, depression, and caregiver burden) were measured with standardized assessments. Also, post-hoc per-protocol analyses were conducted. Results No differences in guideline adherence between the intervention and the control group were observed. Further, no significant impact of the intervention on secondary outcomes was detected. Conclusion The DemTab Study did not improve self-reported guideline adherence in PCP. However, important implementation barriers such as lack of interoperability and low applicability of existing German S3 Dementia Guideline in the primary care setting were identified and are being discussed. Trial registration The DemTab trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry (Trial registration number: ISRCTN15854413). Registered 01 April 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN15854413.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lech, S., Gellert, P., Spang, R. P., Voigt-Antons, J. N., Huscher, D., O'Sullivan, J. L., et al. (2023). Effectiveness of a tablet-based intervention for people living with dementia in primary care-A cluster randomized controlled trial. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.6035
Vancouver
Lech S, Gellert P, Spang RP, Voigt-Antons JN, Huscher D, O'Sullivan JL, et al. Effectiveness of a tablet-based intervention for people living with dementia in primary care-A cluster randomized controlled trial. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2023. doi:10.1002/gps.6035. PMID: 38038608.
BibTeX
@article{lech2023-38038608,
author = {Lech, S. and Gellert, P. and Spang, R. P. and Voigt-Antons, J. N. and Huscher, D. and O'Sullivan, J. L. and Schuster, J.},
title = {{Effectiveness of a tablet-based intervention for people living with dementia in primary care-A cluster randomized controlled trial}},
journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/gps.6035},
pmid = {38038608},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.6035}
}
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
- Intervention A tablet-based intervention to improve adherence to the German S3 Dementia Guideline in primary care was compared to a control group (care as usual plus a handbook on dementia).
- Results No differences in guideline adherence between the intervention and the control group were observed.
- Further, no significant impact of the intervention on secondary outcomes was detected.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Participants28
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 74/100
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 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 74 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry) |
| 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 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 28 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 | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38038608) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 43 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 74 out of 100. |
| Total | 74 / 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 “primary”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “primary”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.