Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Smartphone-based versus traditional face-to-face collaborative care for community-dwelling older adults living with dementia in China: protocol for an implementation science-based sequential multiple assignment randomised trial
Wan Y, Cai Y, Liao S, Zhao Q, Wang Y, Song X, Meng SS, Ji X et al.. BMJ open, 2023-07-09
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction The high costs of institutional care and the burdensome demands of home care are challenging for families of adults with dementia. The collaborative care model (CCM) provides a potential solution to these challenges. Leveraging advancements in mobile technologies, smartphone-based management could offer a feasible means of providing collaborative care in a community setting. Therefore, this study aims to establish a CCM for home-cared older adults with dementia to determine the best strategy to deliver collaborative care, including both the channel and frequency of delivery. Methods and analysis This study will be conducted in the communities of Chengdu city, Sichuan province, China. It is designed under the framework of implementation science. In the first stage, intervention strategies for community-dwelling older adults with dementia and their caregivers will be developed using Delphi methods and focus group interviews. The second stage will involve designing a sequential multiple assignment randomised trial to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face intervention versus a WeChat mini program-based intervention. This comparison will involve 358 pairs of older adults with dementia and their caregivers, with the frequency of intervention also assessed. Follow-up evaluations will be implemented at the 6th, 12th and 18th months post-intervention initiation. Primary outcomes encompass the proportion of patients demonstrating an improvement in quality of life and the proportion of caregivers exhibiting a reduction in caregiver burden. Analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle, and the generalised estimating equation approach will be used. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different delivery methods and frequencies. Ethics and dissemination This study has received approval from the Ethics Committee of West China Fourth Hospital/School of Public Health, Sichuan University (Gwll2022004). Informed consent will be obtained for all participants. The findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals. Trial registration number ChiCTR2200057945.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wan, Y., Cai, Y., Liao, S., Zhao, Q., Wang, Y., Song, X., et al. (2023). Smartphone-based versus traditional face-to-face collaborative care for community-dwelling older adults living with dementia in China: protocol for an implementation science-based sequential multiple assignment randomised trial. BMJ open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067406
Vancouver
Wan Y, Cai Y, Liao S, Zhao Q, Wang Y, Song X, et al. Smartphone-based versus traditional face-to-face collaborative care for community-dwelling older adults living with dementia in China: protocol for an implementation science-based sequential multiple assignment randomised trial. BMJ open. 2023. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067406. PMID: 37423624.
BibTeX
@article{wan2023-37423624,
author = {Wan, Y. and Cai, Y. and Liao, S. and Zhao, Q. and Wang, Y. and Song, X. and Meng, S. S. and Ji, X. and others},
title = {{Smartphone-based versus traditional face-to-face collaborative care for community-dwelling older adults living with dementia in China: protocol for an implementation science-based sequential multiple assignment randomised trial}},
journal = {BMJ open},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067406},
pmid = {37423624},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067406}
}
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.
Key findings
- The second stage will involve designing a sequential multiple assignment randomised trial to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face intervention versus a WeChat mini program-based intervention.
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMJ open) |
| 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 | 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 37423624) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 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
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 “china”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “china”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.