Home › Research › Costs and economics
START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia
Gill Livingston, Julie Barber, Penny Rapaport, Martin Richard John Knapp, Mark Griffin, Renée Romeo, Derek King, Debbie Livingston et al.. Health Technology Assessment, 2014-10-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Two hundred and sixty participants were randomised (173 intervention, 87 TAU). We used intention-to-treat analysis in the short term (152 intervention, 77 TAU) and in the long term (140 intervention, 69 TAU). In the short term, the intervention group had lower HADS-T [mean difference -1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.29 to -0.31; p=0.02] and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.08). Costs were no different between groups [mean £ 252 (95% CI -£ 28 to £ 565) for intervention group]. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a greater than 99% chance of being cost-effectiveness at a £ 30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and a high probability of cost-effectiveness based on the HADS-T score. Carers in the intervention group had less case-level depression [odds ratio (OR) 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.76], a trend towards reduced case-level anxiety (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.05), lower Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-anxiety (HADS-A) (-0.91, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.07; p = 0.03) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression (HADS-D) (-0.91, 95% CI -1.71 to -0.10; p = 0.03) and higher Health Status Questionnaire (HSQ) QoL (mean difference 4.09, 95% CI 0.34 to 7.83). Group differences in abusive behaviour (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.27) and the person with dementia's quality of life-Alzheimer's disease (QoL-AD) (mean increase 0.59, 95% CI -0.72 to 1.89) were not significant. In the long term, the intervention group had lower HADS-T (mean difference -2.58, 95% CI -4.26 to -0.90; p = 0.03) and higher QALYs (mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.06). Carers in the intervention group had less case-level depression (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.53), a trend towards reduced case-level anxiety (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.24), lower HADS-A (-1.16, 95% CI -2.15 to -0.18) and HADS-D (1.45, 95% CI -2.32 to -0.57), and higher HSQ (mean difference 7.47, 95% CI 2.87 to 12.08). Thirty-two (18.7%) people with dementia in the intervention group and 17 (20.2%) in TAU were admitted to a care home (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; p = 0.56). There were no significant differences between groups in abusive behaviour (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.94), the person with dementia's QoL-AD (0.17, 95% CI -1.37 to 1.70) or costs (£ 336, 95% CI -£ 223 to £ 895) for intervention group. The probability that the intervention would be seen as cost-effective at £ 30,000/QALY threshold and cost-effectiveness on the HADS-T remained hi
Key findings
- Two hundred and sixty participants were randomised (173 intervention, 87 TAU).
- We used intention-to-treat analysis in the short term (152 intervention, 77 TAU) and in the long term (140 intervention, 69 TAU).
- In the short term, the intervention group had lower HADS-T [mean difference -1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.29 to -0.31; p=0.02] and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (mean difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.08).
- Costs were no different between groups [mean £ 252 (95% CI -£ 28 to £ 565) for intervention group].
- The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed a greater than 99% chance of being cost-effectiveness at a £ 30,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold and a high probability of cost-effectiveness based on the HADS-T score.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Costs & economics →
Study details
- Effect sizeOR 0.30; OR 0.48; OR 0.14
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 16/100
Report — not peer-reviewed. It scored 31 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, sample size and studied in people 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 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 31 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 | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 2014 — within 20 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 | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| 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 25300037) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 19 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 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
Livingston, G., Barber, J., Rapaport, P., Knapp, M. R. J., Griffin, M., Romeo, R., et al. (2014). START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18610
Vancouver
Livingston G, Barber J, Rapaport P, Knapp MRJ, Griffin M, Romeo R, et al. START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Health Technology Assessment. 2014. doi:10.3310/hta18610. PMID: 25300037.
BibTeX
@article{livingston2014-25300037,
author = {Livingston, Gill and Barber, Julie and Rapaport, Penny and Knapp, Martin Richard John and Griffin, Mark and Romeo, Renée and King, Derek and Livingston, Debbie and others},
title = {{START (STrAtegies for RelaTives) study: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a manual-based coping strategy programme in promoting the mental health of carers of people with dementia}},
journal = {Health Technology Assessment},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.3310/hta18610},
pmid = {25300037},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18610}
}