Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

{{metadata.Title}}

{{metadata.Headline}}

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Gill Livingston 1,2,*, Julie Barber 3, Penny Rapaport 1,2, Martin Knapp 4,5, Mark Griffin 1, Renee Romeo 5, Derek King 4, Debbie Livingston 1, Elanor Lewis-Holmes 1, Cath Mummery 6, Zuzana Walker 1,7, Juanita Hoe 1, Claudia Cooper 1,2

1 Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK
2 Services for Ageing and Mental Health, Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
3 Department of Statistical Science and PRIMENT Clinical Trials Unit, University College London, London, UK
4 Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
5 Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UK
6 Queen Square, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
7 North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Chelmsford, UK
* Corresponding author Email: g.livingston@ucl.ac.uk

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} {{metadata.Title}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

You might also be interested in:
{{classification.Category.Concept}}

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two-thirds of people with dementia live at home, receiving most care from family carers, about 40% of whom have clinically significant depression or anxiety. This impacts on the person with dementia, families and society, predicting care breakdown. There are currently no clinically effective and cost-effective NHS family carer interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) intervention in the short (4 and 8 months) and long term (1 and 2 years) compared with treatment as usual (TAU).

DESIGN

Randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with blinded assessment recruiting participants 2:1 (intervention to TAU) to allow for therapist clustering.

SETTING

Three UK mental health services and one neurological service.

PARTICIPANTS

Family carers of people with dementia.

INTERVENTION

Eight-session manual-based coping intervention delivered by supervised psychology graduates to individuals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Affective symptoms [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-total (HADS-T)] and cost-effectiveness. Secondary measures: anxiety and depression symptoms and caseness, quality of life (QoL), abusive behaviour and long-term care home admission.

RESULTS

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 high.

CONCLUSIONS

The START intervention was clinically effective and cost-effective in the short and longer term. The results are robust to the sensitivity analyses performed. Future work is needed to consider mechanism of action; the effects on people with dementia in clinical terms (cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, longer-term care home admission); and on health and social care costs. In addition, we will explore the effects of carer abusive behaviour on the care recipient's care home admission and if this then reduces abusive behaviour. We would also like to implement START and evaluate this implementation in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISCTRN70017938.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two-thirds of people with dementia live at home, receiving most care from family carers, about 40% of whom have clinically significant depression or anxiety. This impacts on the person with dementia, families and society, predicting care breakdown. There are currently no clinically effective and cost-effective NHS family carer interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) intervention in the short (4 and 8 months) and long term (1 and 2 years) compared with treatment as usual (TAU).

DESIGN

Randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with blinded assessment recruiting participants 2:1 (intervention to TAU) to allow for therapist clustering.

SETTING

Three UK mental health services and one neurological service.

PARTICIPANTS

Family carers of people with dementia.

INTERVENTION

Eight-session manual-based coping intervention delivered by supervised psychology graduates to individuals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Affective symptoms [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-total (HADS-T)] and cost-effectiveness. Secondary measures: anxiety and depression symptoms and caseness, quality of life (QoL), abusive behaviour and long-term care home admission.

RESULTS

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 high.

CONCLUSIONS

The START intervention was clinically effective and cost-effective in the short and longer term. The results are robust to the sensitivity analyses performed. Future work is needed to consider mechanism of action; the effects on people with dementia in clinical terms (cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, longer-term care home admission); and on health and social care costs. In addition, we will explore the effects of carer abusive behaviour on the care recipient's care home admission and if this then reduces abusive behaviour. We would also like to implement START and evaluate this implementation in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISCTRN70017938.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions