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.

16/100

⚠ Report — not peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 16 out of 100. Costs and economics

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53]. Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a subscale of the GHQ-28 at the 10-month end point (mean difference 1.25, SE 0.5; F = 8.28; p = 0.04). Compliance analyses suggested some benefits for people with dementia who attended more reminiscence sessions; however, carers attending more groups showed increased caregiving stress. Use of health- and social-care services was modest, with no significant difference in service use between conditions. Owing to negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-year gains (derived from European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) between the conditions the planned full economic analysis was curtailed. This trial does not provide support for the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of joint reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their carers. Although there may be some beneficial effects for people with dementia who attend sessions as planned, this must be viewed in the context of raised anxiety and stress in their carers. The reasons for these discrepant outcomes need to be explored further, and may necessitate reappraisal of the movement towards joint interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42430123. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 48. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Key findings

The intention-to-treat analysis identified no differences in outcome between the intervention and control conditions on primary or secondary outcomes [self-reported quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: mean difference 0.07, standard error (SE) 0.65; F = 0.48; p = 0.53].
Carers of people with dementia allocated to the reminiscence intervention reported a significant increase in anxiety on a subscale of the GHQ-28 at the 10-month end point (mean difference 1.25, SE 0.5; F = 8.28; p = 0.04).
Compliance analyses suggested some benefits for people with dementia who attended more reminiscence sessions; however, carers attending more groups showed increased caregiving stress.
Use of health- and social-care services was modest, with no significant difference in service use between conditions.
Owing to negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-year gains (derived from European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) between the conditions the planned full economic analysis was curtailed.

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

Study details

Study designrandomized controlled trial
Participants488
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 16/100

Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 52 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 32 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	2 / 10	Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Health Technology Assessment)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count
Study design	11 / 12	A randomised controlled trial
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	3 / 10	Report — not peer-reviewed. Named source is an organisational report, not a journal article.
How recent	1 / 5	2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	488 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 23211271)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	32 / 62	Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total	52 / 100	Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article.

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.

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

Woods, B. T., Bruce, E., Edwards, R. T., Elvish, R., Hoare, Z., Hounsome, B., et al. (2012). REMCARE: reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers – effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic multicentre randomised trial. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16480

Vancouver

Woods BT, Bruce E, Edwards RT, Elvish R, Hoare Z, Hounsome B, et al. REMCARE: reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers – effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic multicentre randomised trial. Health Technology Assessment. 2012. doi:10.3310/hta16480. PMID: 23211271.

BibTeX

@article{woods2012-23211271,
  author  = {Woods, Bob T. and Bruce, E. and Edwards, RT and Elvish, Ruth and Hoare, Zoë and Hounsome, Barry and Keady, John David and Moniz-Cook, Esme D. and others},
  title   = {{REMCARE: reminiscence groups for people with dementia and their family caregivers – effectiveness and cost-effectiveness pragmatic multicentre randomised trial}},
  journal = {Health Technology Assessment},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.3310/hta16480},
  pmid    = {23211271},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3310/hta16480}
}

Related studies in Costs and economics

Also tagged “caregiver”

195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Costs and economics

See all studies in Costs and economics →