scholarly journals Estimating the minimum important difference in the DEMQOL instrument in people with dementia

Author(s):  
Ellen C. Lee ◽  
Jessica Wright ◽  
Stephen J. Walters ◽  
Cindy L. Cooper ◽  
Gail A. Mountain

Abstract Purpose The Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL) measure and the DEMQOL-Utility Score (DEMQOL-U) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) in people with dementia. What score changes translate to a clinically significant impact on patients’ lives was unknown. This study establishes the minimal important differences (MID) for these two instruments. Methods Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MID scores from patients enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL (Q29) item from the DEMQOL was chosen as the anchor for DEMQOL and both Q29 and EQ-5D for DEMQOL-U. A one category difference in Q29, and a 0.07 point difference in EQ-5D score, were used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MID scores were calculated for each category. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-based methods. Results A total of 490 people with dementia had baseline DEMQOL data, of these 386 had 8-month data, and 344 had 12-month DEMQOL data. The absolute change in DEMQOL for a combined 1-point increase or decrease in the Q29 anchor was 5.2 at 8 months and 6.0 at 12 months. For the DEMQOL-U, the average absolute change at 8 and 12 months was 0.032 and 0.046 for the Q29 anchor and 0.020 and 0.024 for EQ-5D anchor. Conclusion We present MID scores for the DEMQOL and DEMQOL-U instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with dementia. An anchored-based estimate of the MID for the DEMQOL is around 5 to 6 points; and 0.02 to 0.05 points for the DEMQOL-U. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments comparisons between groups or within groups of people with dementia. Trial Registration Number and date of registration: ISRCTN17993825 on 11th October 2016.

BMJ ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 331 (7518) ◽  
pp. 665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart R Dalziel ◽  
Vanessa K Lim ◽  
Anthony Lambert ◽  
Dianne McCarthy ◽  
Varsha Parag ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Becky Dowson ◽  
Justine Schneider ◽  
Boliang Guo ◽  
Philip M. Bath ◽  
Orii McDermott ◽  
...  

Abstract Background As the number of people living with dementia grows, so does the need to provide them with adequate psychosocial support. Many people with dementia live at home with family carers, who also require social and emotional support to cope with their role. Community group singing has received attention for its potential to support people with dementia and their carers. It is postulated that singing can improve cognitive function, strengthen the bonds between care partners and help to establish social support networks. However, there is a lack of rigorous evidence of singing’s benefits for this population. This study aims to test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of community singing in dementia, to pave the way for a larger, conclusive study. Methods The PRESIDE study is designed as a two-arm, parallel-group randomised trial with a waiting list control. Dyads consisting of a person with dementia (n = 80) and their carer (n = 80) will be recruited. Each dyad will be randomised either to attend 10 weeks of community group singing sessions straight away or to wait for 3 months before attending the sessions. The singing sessions will be led by experienced professional musicians and will last about 90 min, including time for socialising. The primary outcome of this study is the attainment of feasibility criteria around recruitment, retention and the acceptability of the waiting list control. Secondary outcomes include the quality of life, mood, cognition, and musical engagement of the person with dementia, and quality of life, mood, and experiences/challenges of the carer. These data will be collected during home visits at baseline, and 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Discussion Despite growing public interest in the positive effects of singing, and encouraging findings from qualitative and non-randomised quantitative studies, there is a lack of rigorous evidence. This is the first randomised controlled trial of community group singing for people with dementia in Europe, to our knowledge. If the results favour a full trial, conclusively demonstrating the effectiveness of group singing could positively affect the opportunities available to community-dwelling people with dementia and their carers. Trial registration Unique identification number in ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN10201482. Date registered: 12 May 2020


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 744-756 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Karen la Cour ◽  
Lisa Gregersen Oestergaard ◽  
Anna Thit Johnsen ◽  
Line Lindahl-Jacobsen ◽  
...  

Background: People with advanced cancer face difficulties with their everyday activities at home that may reduce their health-related quality of life. To address these difficulties, we developed the ‘Cancer Home-Life Intervention’. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of the ‘Cancer Home Life-Intervention’ compared with usual care with regard to patients’ performance of, and participation in, everyday activities, and their health-related quality of life. Design and intervention: A randomised controlled trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02356627). The ‘Cancer Home-Life Intervention’ is a brief, tailored, occupational therapy–based and adaptive programme for people with advanced cancer targeting the performance of their prioritised everyday activities. Setting/participants: Home-living adults diagnosed with advanced cancer experiencing functional limitations were recruited from two Danish hospitals. They were assessed at baseline, and at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was activities of daily living motor ability. Secondary outcomes were activities of daily living process ability, difficulty performing prioritised everyday activities, participation restrictions and health-related quality of life. Results: A total of 242 participants were randomised either to the intervention group ( n = 121) or the control group ( n = 121). No effect was found on the primary outcome (between-group mean change: −0.04 logits (95% confidence interval: −0.23 to 0.15); p = 0.69). Nor was any effect on the secondary outcomes observed. Conclusion: In most cases, the ‘Cancer Home-Life Intervention’ was delivered through only one home visit and one follow-up telephone contact, which not was effective in maintaining or improving participants’ everyday activities and health-related quality of life. Future research should pay even more attention to intervention development and feasibility testing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1193-1201
Author(s):  
Franklin Teixeira Salles‐Neto ◽  
Janice Simpson Paula ◽  
João Gabriel de Azevedo José Romero ◽  
Camila Megale Almeida‐Leite

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja van der Hout ◽  
Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan ◽  
Karen Holtmaat ◽  
Femke Jansen ◽  
Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document