Search

Purpose: Despite a call for earlier diagnosis of dementia, the diagnostic yield of case finding and its impact on the mental health of patients and relatives are unclear. This study assessed the effect of a two-component intervention of case finding and subsequent care on these outcomes. Methods: In a cluster RCT we assessed whether education of family physicians (FPs; trial stage 1) resulted in more mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia diagnoses among older persons in whom FPs suspected cognitive decline and whether case finding by a practice nurse and the FP (trial stage 2) added to this number of diagnoses. In addition, we assessed mental health effects of case finding and subsequent care (trial stage 2). FPs of 15 primary care practices (PCPs = clusters) judged the cognitive status of all persons ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome, new MCI and dementia diagnoses by FPs after 12 months as indicated on a list, was assessed among all persons in whom FPs suspected cognitive impairment but without a formal diagnosis of dementia. The secondary outcome, mental health of patients and their relatives, was assessed among persons consenting to participate in trial stage 2. Trial stage 1 consisted of either intervention component 1: training FPs to diagnose MCI and dementia, or control: no training. Trial stage 2 consisted of either intervention component 2: case finding of MCI and dementia and care by a trained nurse and the FP, or control: care as usual. Results: Seven PCPs were randomized to the intervention; eight to the control condition. MCI or dementia was diagnosed in 42.3% (138/326) of persons in the intervention, and in 30.5% (98/321) in the control group (estimated difference GEE: 10.8%, OR: 1.51, 95%-CI 0.60–3.76). Among patients and relatives who consented to stage 2 of the trial (n = 145; 25%), there were no differences in mental health between the intervention and control group. Conclusions: We found a non-significant increase in the number of new MCI diagnoses. As we cannot exclude a clinically relevant effect, a larger study is warranted to replicate ours. Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dementia imposes a heavy burden on health and social care systems as well as on family caregivers who provide a substantial portion of the care. Interventions that effectively support caregivers may prevent or delay patient institutionalization and hence be cost-effective. However, evidence about the cost-effectiveness of such interventions is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a family meetings intervention for family caregivers of dementia patients in comparison with usual care over a period of 12 months. Methods: The economic evaluation was conducted from a societal perspective alongside a randomized trial of 192 primary caregivers with community-dwelling dementia patients. Outcome measures included the Quality Adjusted Life-Years (QALY) of caregivers and patients and the incidence of depression and anxiety disorders in caregivers. Missing cost and effect data were imputed using multiple imputations. Bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty around the cost-differences and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The bootstrapped cost-effect pairs were plotted on a cost-effectiveness plane and used to estimate cost-effectiveness curves. Results: No significant differences in costs and effects between the groups were found. At 12 months, total costs per patient and primary caregiver dyad were substantial: €77,832 for the intervention group and €75,201 for the usual care group (adjusted mean difference per dyad €4,149, 95% CI -13,371 to 21,956, ICER 157,534). The main cost driver was informal care (66% of total costs), followed by patients' day treatment and costs of hospital and long-term care facility admissions (23%). Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the maximum probability that the intervention was considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care reached 0.4 for the outcome QALY per patient-caregiver dyad and 0.6 for the caregivers' incidence of depression and/or anxiety disorders regardless of the willingness to pay. Conclusions: The annual costs of caring for a person with dementia were substantial with informal care being by far the largest contributor to the total societal costs. Based on this study, family meetings cannot be considered a cost-effective intervention strategy in comparison with usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions relieving the burden of caregiving may postpone or prevent patient institutionalization. The objective of this study was to determine whether a family meetings intervention was superior to usual care in postponing nursing home placement of patients with dementia. Methods: A randomized multicenter trial was conducted among 192 patients with a clinical diagnosis of dementia living at home at enrolment and their primary family caregiver. Dyads of caregivers and patients were randomized to the family meetings intervention (n = 96) or usual care (n = 96) condition. The intervention consisted of two individual sessions with the primary caregiver and four family counseling sessions that included family members and friends. The primary outcome measure was the time until institutionalization of the patient. Intention-to-treat as well as per protocol analyses were performed. Survival analyses were carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. Results: During 18 months follow-up 23 of 96 relatives with dementia of caregivers in the intervention group and 18 of 96 relatives with dementia of caregivers in the usual care group were institutionalized. No significant difference between the intervention and the usual care group was found in time until institutionalization (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 2.74). The per-protocol analysis revealed no significant effect either (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.57), although the number of placements among the adherers was relatively low (9.4%). A subgroup effect was found for patients' age, with a significantly higher risk of institutionalization for 'younger' patients in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (adjusted HR = 4.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 22.13). Conclusion: This family meetings intervention for primary caregivers of patients with dementia did not postpone patient institutionalization more than usual care. Trial Registration: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN90163486 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the primary care setting, dementia is often diagnosed relatively late in the disease process. Case finding and proactive collaborative care may have beneficial effects on both patient and informal caregiver by clarifying the cause of cognitive decline and changed behaviour and by enabling support, care planning and access to services. We aim to improve the recognition and diagnosis of individuals with dementia in general practice. In addition to this diagnostic aim, the effects of case finding and subsequent care on the mental health of individuals with dementia and the mental health of their informal carers are explored. Methods and design: Design: cluster randomised controlled trial with process evaluation. Participants: 162 individuals ≥ 65 years, in 15 primary care practices, in whom GPs suspect cognitive impairment, but without a dementia diagnosis. Intervention; case finding and collaborative care: 2 trained practice nurses (PNs) invite all patients with suspected cognitive impairment for a brief functional and cognitive screening. If the cognitive tests are supportive of cognitive impairment, individuals are referred to their GP for further evaluation. If dementia is diagnosed, a comprehensive geriatric assessment takes place to identify other relevant geriatric problems that need to be addressed. Furthermore, the team of GP and PN provide information and support. Control: GPs provide care and diagnosis as usual. Main study parameters: after 12 months both groups are compared on: 1) incident dementia (and MCI) diagnoses and 2) patient and caregiver quality of life (QoL-AD; EQ5D) and mental health (MH5; GHQ 12) and caregiver competence to care (SSCQ). The process evaluation concerns facilitating and impeding factors to the implementation of this intervention. These factors are assessed on the care provider level, the care recipient level and on the organisational level. Discussion: This study will provide insight into the diagnostic yield and the clinical effects of case finding and collaborative care for individuals with suspected cognitive impairment, compared to usual care. A process evaluation will give insight into the feasibility of this intervention. The first results are expected in the course of 2013. Trial registration: NTR3389 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]