Search

Objectives The use of assistive technology and telecare (ATT) has been promoted to manage risks associated with independent living in people with dementia but with little evidence for effectiveness. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to receive an ATT assessment followed by installation of all appropriate ATT devices or limited control of appropriate ATT. The primary outcomes were time to institutionalisation and cost-effectiveness. Key secondary outcomes were number of incidents involving risks to safety, burden and stress in family caregivers and quality of life. Results Participants were assigned to receive full ATT (248 participants) or the limited control (247 participants). After adjusting for baseline imbalance of activities of daily living score, HR for median pre-institutionalisation survival was 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; P = 0.20. There were no significant differences between arms in health and social care (mean -£909; 95% CI, -£5,336 to £3,345, P = 0.678) and societal costs (mean -£3,545; 95% CI, -£13,914 to £6,581, P = 0.499). ATT group members had reduced participant-rated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 104 weeks (mean − 0.105; 95% CI, −0.204 to −0.007, P = 0.037) but did not differ in QALYs derived from proxy-reported EQ-5D. Discussion Fidelity of the intervention was low in terms of matching ATT assessment, recommendations and installation. This, however, reflects current practice within adult social care in England. Conclusions Time living independently outside a care home was not significantly longer in participants who received full ATT and ATT was not cost-effective. Participants with full ATT attained fewer QALYs based on participant-reported EQ-5D than controls at 104 weeks.

BackgroundAssistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness.ObjectivesThis trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated.DesignThis was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.SettingThis trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities.ParticipantsParticipants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview.ResultsOf 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01;p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12;p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£909, 95% confidence interval –£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£3545; 95% confidence interval –£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval –0.204 to –0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks.LimitationsCompliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events.ConclusionsA full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants’ health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants’ EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire.Future workFuture work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

INTRODUCTION, Assistive Technology and Telecare (ATT) may alleviate psychological burden in informal caregivers of people with dementia. This study assessed the impact of ATT on informal caregivers’ burden and psychological wellbeing.METHODS, Individuals with dementia and their informal caregivers were recruited to a randomized controlled trial assessing effectiveness of ATT. Caregivers were allocated to two groups according to their cared-for person’s randomization to a full or basic package of ATT and were assessed on caregiver burden, state anxiety, and depression. Caregivers’ data from three assessments over six months of the trial were analysed. RESULTS, No significant between- or within-group differences at any time point on caregivers’ burden, anxiety, and depression levels were found.DISCUSSION, Full ATT for people with dementia did not impact caregivers’ psychological outcomes compared to basic ATT. The length of follow up was restricted to six months.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to define current assistive technology and telecare (ATT) practice for people with dementia living at home.Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial (N = 495) of ATT assessment and ATT installation intervention, compared with control (restricted ATT package). ATT assessment and installation data were collected. Qualitative work identified value networks delivering ATT, established an ATT assessment standard.Results: ATT was delivered by public and not-for-profit telecare networks. ATT assessments showed 52% fidelity to the ATT assessment standard. Areas of assessment most frequently leading to identifying ATT need were daily activities (93%), memory (89%), and problem-solving (83%). ATT needs and recommendations were weakly correlated (τ = 0.242; P < .000), with ATT recommendations and installations moderately correlated (τ = -0.470; P < .000). Half (53%) of recommended technology was not installed. Safety concerns motivated 38% of installations.Discussion: Assessment recommendations were routinely disregarded at the point of installation. ATT was commonly recommended for safety and seldom for supporting leisure.