OBJECTIVE: There is a need, in the absence of formal services, to design interventions aimed at improving the lives of people with dementia and their families. This study tested the effectiveness of the 10/66 caregiver intervention among people with dementia and their caregivers in Lima, Peru.
METHOD: Design/participants: a randomized controlled trial was performed involving 58 caregivers of people with dementia that received the intervention in the beginning of the trial (n = 29) or six months later (n = 29). The intervention consisted of three modules: 1) assessment (one session); 2) basic education about dementia (two sessions); and 3) training regarding specific problem behaviors (two sessions). Main outcome measures: Caregivers and patients with dementia were assessed at baseline and after six months. For caregivers, the measures included strain (Zarit Burden Interview), psychological distress (SRQ-20), and quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF). Dementia patients completed scales assessing behavioral and psychological symptoms (NPI-Q) and quality of life (DEMQOL).
RESULTS: Caregivers in the intervention group reported significantly decreased strain measures six months after the intervention compared to controls. No group differences were found in respect to the caregivers' psychological distress and to quality of life in both caregivers and patients.
CONCLUSION: The 10/66 intervention seems to be as effective as similar interventions used in more developed countries.
Objective: The primary objective is to report on the efficacy of an individualized dementia care consultation intervention for family caregivers of patients with diagnosed dementia living in the community. The secondary objective is to present evidence on the intervention process to inform the feasibility and sustainability of the model featuring collaboration between primary care physicians and a voluntary sector organization. Method: Randomization was based on primary care physician practice site. In the intervention group, dementia care consultants located at an Alzheimer's association chapter provided individualized counseling and support over a 12-month period, and sent copies of care plans developed with family caregivers to referring primary care physicians. In the control group, family caregivers received educational and community resource information but no care consultation. Nursing home admission of patients during the 12-month study period was the primary outcome; secondary outcomes included measures of caregiver self-efficacy for managing dementia, caregiver depressive symptoms, and caregiver burden. Results: A total of 84 family caregivers participated. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients whose family caregivers were in the intervention group were less likely than their control group counterparts to be admitted to a nursing home (Adjusted odds ratio = 0.40; 95% C.I. = 0.14-1.18; p = 0.10). No other outcomes were significantly different between treatment groups; however, intervention group caregivers reporting greater satisfaction with the intervention showed improved self-efficacy for managing dementia compared to their less satisfied counterparts. Medical record reviews found that care plans were found in most patient records, but that only 27% of intervention group caregivers reported discussing these care plans with physicians. Three different individuals occupied the dementia care consultant position during the study period, and this turnover led to family caregiver dissatisfaction. Conclusion: The dementia care consultation intervention showed favorable effects on nursing home admission and on caregiver outcomes among intervention group caregivers more satisfied with the intervention, but there are important barriers to sustaining this collaboration between primary care physicians and a voluntary sector organization such as an Alzheimer's association chapter.
Dementia induces morbidity not only in the patients but also in the families taking care of them. Many studies described the impact of care-giving on physical and psychological health. Support groups were designed to alleviate the burden of care-givers. The objective of this study was to measure the efficacy of a support group programme for care-givers of demented patients in the community. Forty-one primary care-givers were randomly assigned to a study (n=23) or a control group (n=18). Subjects of the study group attended a structured programme of eight 2-h sessions. These weekly sessions consisted of information on the disease, role-playing on management of behavior problems, discussion on emotional impact of care-giving, and learning of stress management techniques. Subjects of the control group were referred to informal monthly meetings of the Alzheimer's Society. Subjects of both groups were evaluated at the entry (T1), after 8 weeks (T2) and after 8 months (T3). The outcome variables were the Burden Interview, the Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist, the Brief Symptoms Inventory, the Alzheimer's Disease Knowledge Test and a questionnaire on health care utilization. Compared with the control group, subjects of the study group yielded only a significant increase in knowledge about the disease (p<0.0001) but no significant difference on the other outcome variables. It is concluded that this type of support group programme seems to have only a minimal impact on morbidity and on the burden of care-givers. These results are similar with two other studies examining the same issue.
OBJECTIVES: To test the efficacy of a psychoeducative group program for informal caregivers of persons with dementia.
METHODS: The study was a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Randomization was stratified according to sex and kinship. Participants randomized to the control group were referred to the traditional support groups. Participants in the study group had fifteen 2-hr weekly sessions focusing on stress appraisal and coping. Eligible participants (primary caregivers of community-dwelling persons with dementia) were blindly assessed before the randomization and after 16 weeks on the following measures: frequency and reactions to behavioral problems (primary outcome), burden, psychological distress, anxiety, perceived social support, and personal efficacy.
RESULTS: A total of 158 participants were randomized to the study (n = 79) and control (n = 79) groups in 12 successive waves. Results show that study participants presented a 14% decrease in their reactions to the behavioral problems of the care-receivers as opposed to a 5% decrease in the control group ( p =.04). The frequency of behavior problems also decreased ( p =.06), as did the cross-product frequency/reaction ( p =.02). There was no significant effect on the secondary outcome variables.
DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies showing a significant effect of this type of support group program on the caregivers of participants with dementia.
The Aide dans la Maladie d'Alzheimer (AIDMA) study was conducted to determine whether a psycho-educational programme (PEP) for primary caregivers in addition to standard anti-dementia drugs for patients improves caregivers' psychological condition and patients' activities of daily life.
METHOD:
Multicentre randomised controlled intervention trial. One hundred and sixty-seven dyads 'patient-caregiver' were recruited from 15 French memory clinics and randomised in two parallel groups. The intervention group was offered the PEP in 12 group sessions for 3 months. The control group had usual care. Patients in both groups with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) were diagnosed and treated with pharmacotherapy. Patients' primary efficacy variable was functional status assessed with the Disability Assessment Scale for Dementia (DAD) scale. Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) were secondary criteria. Caregivers' first outcome measure was depressive symptoms assessed with the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scale. Zarit scale, Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SCQ) and Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) were secondary criteria. Assessment was done at baseline, 3 months (M3, end of intervention) and 6 months (M6).
RESULTS:
Patients' stabilisation was observed in both groups. In caregivers, significant improvement in disease understanding at M3 (p = 0.007) and M6 (p = 0.0001) and in ability to cope with care-recipients' disease at M6 (0.02) was evidenced.
