Background
Rationale for the present trial
Aim of the LIVE@Home.Path trial
Main hypothesis
Methods and design
Method of intervention development, implementation and evaluation
Development of the LIVE intervention
The LIVE intervention
Learning | Innovation | Volunteer | Empowerment | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Content | Local learning programs covering key aspects of the dementia syndrome, coping in daily life, legal, safety and economic issues | Tailored use of welfare technology such as technical aids, cognitive intervention devices and assisted living systems/smart house systems Service innovation Data collection | PWDs often experience social deprivation, and volunteer support is a politically highly prioritized area in Norway Support of relatives | End-of-life care and advance care planning: a repeating process of communication to investigate values and wishes for domestic and institutionalized treatment and care (i.e. “What matters to you?”) Systematic medication review by the PWD’s general practitioner |
Participants | PWD Caregivers Coordinators Volunteers Teachers in the municipal and specialized health-care services | PWD Caregivers Coordinators | PWD Caregivers Coordinators Volunteers from nonprofit organizations (The Red Cross, Norwegian Association for Public Health) Volunteer managers | PWD Caregivers Coordinators General practitioner |
Actions | Coordinator: • Inform about potential lessons/courses for both PWD and caregiver • Search for practical solutions to ensure participation | Coordinator: • Assess and evaluate usefulness of devices already in use • Inform about additional available welfare technology in the municipality • Inform about specific communication platforms (Jodacare©, Friskus©), social media forums (Facebook©) and applications for tablets (Alight©) | Coordinator: • Inform about volunteer services Volunteer manager: • Match PWD with volunteer after assessment of preferences and wishes | Coordinator: • Initiate systematic medication review with general practitioner • Initiate advanced care planning with general practitioner, including issues on formal next of kin, guardianship • Facilitate application process for home-based services |
The feasibility study
Implementation process of the LIVE intervention
Evaluation of the implementation process
Sample size calculations, settings and target populations
The mixed-method, stepped-wedge randomized control design
Outcome measures
Domain: name of tool | Specific measurement: what the tool measures | Characteristics of tool | Metric | Method of aggregation | Time points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary outcome | |||||
Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) (65, 66, 68) | Resource utilization in dementia care | Self-reported formal and informal care time use in hours/30 days on activities of daily living (e.g. feeding, dressing, bathing) and supervision (e.g. wandering, preventing dangerous situations) Assess number of contacts with health-care professionals for both PWD and caregivers in the last 30 days, and use of medications High number of hours of direct care time and numerous contacts with health-care professionals indicates high overall resource use in dementia care | Change in hours/30 days | Mean | Mean difference in hours/30 days over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in hours/30 days summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in hours/30 days over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Relative Stress Scale (RSS) (69, 70) | Caregiver distress | 15 items for self-report of three subgroups of distress: “emotional distress”, “social distress” and “negative feelings” Each item ranging from 0 to 4 High score indicates high burden and psychiatric morbidity | Change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Secondary outcomes | |||||
European Quality of Life—5 Dimensions—5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) (72) | Generic quality of life | Evaluates generic self-reported health-related quality of life in relation to resource use Five items regarding mobility, self-care, activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression scored on a five-level scale Scores are converted to a single summary index number | Change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
EQ-5D-VAS scale (73) | Quality of Life-VAS scale | One-point measure of generic self-reported health-related quality of life rated on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100, high score indicates good quality of life | Change in score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s disease scale (QoL-AD) (71) | Quality of life in Alzheimer’s dementia | Disease-specific self-reported quality of life measure assessing13 items each ranging from 1 to 4 High score indicates high quality of life | Change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Neuropsychiatric Inventory, 12-item version with caregiver distress (NPI-12) (74) | Neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia | Proxy-rated presence, severity and caregiver distress of 12 items assessing depression, anxiety, psychosis and motor disturbances Range 0–144, high score indicates frequent and severe symptoms The distress scale assess caregiver distress associated with each neuropsychiatric symptom, range 0–60, high score indicate distressing symptoms | Change in total score and change in score for each item | Mean, and proportion above clinical significant score | Mean difference in total and item specific score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in total and item specific score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) (75, 76) | Agitation in dementia | 29 items rated from 1 to 7 for proxy assessment frequency of agitated behavior Range 29–203, high score indicates frequent agitation | Change in total score | Mean and proportion above clinical significant score | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) (77) | Depression in dementia | 19 items rated from 0 to 2 for proxy assessment of depressive symptoms in dementia Range 0–38 Score ≥ 8 indicates depression; ≥ 12 indicates moderate–severe depression | Change in total score | Mean and proportion above clinical significant score | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) (78) | Depression in old age | 30 items rated 0 or 1, for proxy assessment of depressive symptoms in the elderly population High score indicates high symptom load | Change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Activities of Daily Living, Instrumental (I-ADL) (76) | Functional level for instrumental activities | Eight items for proxy assessment of use of telephone, shopping, economy, public transport and household Range 8–31, high score indicates poor functioning | Change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Activities of Daily Living, Personal (P-ADL) (79) | Functional level for personal activities | Six items rated 1–5 for proxy assessment of personal activities such as toileting, grooming, dressing, transfer and eating Range 6–30, high score indicates poor functioning | Change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
General Medical Health Rating Scale (GMRH) (85) | Medical comorbidity in dementia | 4-point Likert scale assessing presence and severity of medical conditions, scored by the interviewer High score indicates high comorbidity burden | Ratings on the Likert scale transformed to numeric scale to estimate change in total score | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Mobilization–Observation–Behavior–Intensity Dementia Pain Scale (MOBID-2) (80–84) | Pain in dementia | 10 items rated 0–10 for proxy-rated assessment of pain related to the muscle–skeletal system and pain that might be related to internal organs, head and skin High score indicates frequent and severe pain | Change in overall score and change in score for each item | Mean | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |
Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) (86) | Clinical meaningful change | Quantifies and tracks patient progress and treatment response on a scale from 1 to 7, scored by the interviewer High score indicates worsening | Change in overall score | Mean and proportion with worsening, no change and improvement | Mean difference in score over the 6-month intervention period summarized for the three intervention groups compared to mean difference in score summarized for the control groupsa Mean difference in score over the follow-up period in 6-month intervals stratified by time from end of interventionb |