Home › Research › Treatments
Study protocol: pragmatic randomized control trial of my tools 4 care- in care (MT4C-in care) a web-based tool for family Carers of persons with dementia residing in long term care
Duggleby W, O'Rourke H, Swindle J, Peacock S, McAiney C, Baxter P, Thompson G, Dubé V et al.. BMC geriatrics, 2020-08-10
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background When a family member resides in long term care facility (LTC), family carers continue caregiving and have been found to have decreases in mental health. The aim of My Tools 4 Care - In Care (an online intervention) is to support carers of persons living with dementia residing in LTC through transitions and increase their self-efficacy, hope, social support and mental health. This article comprises the protocol for a study to evaluate My Tools 4 Care-In Care (MT4C-In Care) by asking the following research questions: 1) Is there a 2 month (immediately post-intervention) and 4 month (2 months post-intervention) increase in mental health, general self-efficacy, social support and hope, and decrease in grief and loneliness, in carers of a person living with dementia residing in LTC using MT4C-In CARE compared to an educational control group? 2) Do carers of persons living with dementia residing in LTC perceive My Tools 4 Care- In Care helps them with the transitions they experience? Methods This study is a single blinded pragmatic mixed methods randomized controlled trial. Approximately 280 family carers of older persons (65 years of age and older) with dementia residing in LTC will be recruited for this study. Data will be collected at three time points: baseline, 2 month, and 4 months. Based on the feasibility study, we hypothesize that participants using MT4C-In Care will report significant increases in hope, general self-efficacy, social support and mental health quality of life, and significant decreases in grief and loneliness from baseline, as compared to an educational control group. To determine differences between groups and over time, generalized estimating equations analysis will be used. Qualitative descriptive analysis will be used to further evaluate MT4C-In Care and if it supports carers through transitions. Discussion Data collection will begin in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan) in February 2020 and is expected to be completed in June 2021. The results will inform policy and practice as MT4C-In Care can be revised for local contexts and posted on websites such as those hosted by the Alzheimer Society of Canada. Trial registration NCT04226872 ClinicalTrials.gov Registered 09 January 2020 Protocol Version #2 Feb 19, 2020.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Duggleby, W., O'Rourke, H., Swindle, J., Peacock, S., McAiney, C., Baxter, P., et al. (2020). Study protocol: pragmatic randomized control trial of my tools 4 care- in care (MT4C-in care) a web-based tool for family Carers of persons with dementia residing in long term care. BMC geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01690-w
Vancouver
Duggleby W, O'Rourke H, Swindle J, Peacock S, McAiney C, Baxter P, et al. Study protocol: pragmatic randomized control trial of my tools 4 care- in care (MT4C-in care) a web-based tool for family Carers of persons with dementia residing in long term care. BMC geriatrics. 2020. doi:10.1186/s12877-020-01690-w. PMID: 32778059.
BibTeX
@article{duggleby2020-32778059,
author = {Duggleby, W. and O'Rourke, H. and Swindle, J. and Peacock, S. and McAiney, C. and Baxter, P. and Thompson, G. and Dubé, V. and others},
title = {{Study protocol: pragmatic randomized control trial of my tools 4 care- in care (MT4C-in care) a web-based tool for family Carers of persons with dementia residing in long term care}},
journal = {BMC geriatrics},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1186/s12877-020-01690-w},
pmid = {32778059},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01690-w}
}
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
- This article comprises the protocol for a study to evaluate My Tools 4 Care-In Care (MT4C-In Care) by asking the following research questions: 1) Is there a 2 month (immediately post-intervention) and 4 month (2 months post-intervention) increase in mental health, general self-efficacy, social support and hope, and decrease in grief and loneliness, in carers of a person living with dementia residing in LTC using MT4C-In CARE compared to an educational control group? 2) Do carers of persons living with dementia residing in LTC perceive My Tools 4 Care- In Care helps them with the transitions they experience?
- Based on the feasibility study, we hypothesize that participants using MT4C-In Care will report significant increases in hope, general self-efficacy, social support and mental health quality of life, and significant decreases in grief and loneliness from baseline, as compared to an educational control group.
- The results will inform policy and practice as MT4C-In Care can be revised for local contexts and posted on websites such as those hosted by the Alzheimer Society of Canada.
Why it matters
This is only a protocol for testing an online tool meant to support family carers of people with dementia in long-term care. No results are reported, so it cannot yet show any effect on carers or on Alzheimer's disease itself.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designrandomized controlled trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 52/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (BMC geriatrics) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | BMC Geriatrics: journal h-index 153 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 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 | 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 | 2 / 7 | Cited 5 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.6 citations a year over 8 year(s) since 2020 |
| Impact for its field and year | 1 / 6 | Cited 0.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Jayna Marie Holroyd-Leduc: h-index 48 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | McMaster University: institution h-index 1,334 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 10 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 32778059) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 52 / 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 this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.