智障和痴呆患者群体认知刺激疗法:可行性随机对照试验。

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Afia Ali, Cheryl Francis, Sarah Hoare, Joanna Carter, Nia Goulden, Caroline S Clarke, Georgina Charlesworth, Zoe Hoare, Danny Acton, Shafia Khanum, Akinwande Onafalujo, Adebayo Jejeloye, Kate Brackley, Elisa Aguirre, Aimee Spector
{"title":"智障和痴呆患者群体认知刺激疗法:可行性随机对照试验。","authors":"Afia Ali, Cheryl Francis, Sarah Hoare, Joanna Carter, Nia Goulden, Caroline S Clarke, Georgina Charlesworth, Zoe Hoare, Danny Acton, Shafia Khanum, Akinwande Onafalujo, Adebayo Jejeloye, Kate Brackley, Elisa Aguirre, Aimee Spector","doi":"10.1192/bjo.2025.10764","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Group cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) has been shown to improve cognition and quality of life of people with dementia in multiple trials, but there has been scant research involving people with intellectual disability and dementia. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of group CST for this population.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the feasibility of participant recruitment and retention, the appropriateness of outcome measures, and the feasibility of group CST (adherence, fidelity, acceptability), as well as the feasibility of collecting data for an economic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants were recruited from six National Health Service trusts in England and randomised to group CST plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU only. Cognition, quality of life, depression, and use of health and social care services were measured at baseline and at 8-9 weeks. Qualitative interviews with participants, carers and facilitators were used to explore facilitators of and barriers to delivery of CST. Trial registration number: ISRCTN88614460.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We obtained consent from 46 participants, and 34 (73.9%) were randomised: 18 to CST and 16 to TAU. All randomised participants completed follow-up. Completion rates of outcome measures (including health economic measures) were adequate; 75.7% of sessions were delivered, and 56% of participants attended ten or more. Fidelity of delivery was of moderate quality. CST was acceptable to all stakeholders; barriers included travel distance, carer availability and sessions needing further adaptations. The estimated cost per participant of delivering CST was £602.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were multiple challenges including recruitment issues, a large dropout rate before randomisation and practical issues affecting attendance. These issues would need to be addressed before conducting a larger trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":9038,"journal":{"name":"BJPsych Open","volume":"11 5","pages":"e168"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group cognitive stimulation therapy for people with intellectual disability and dementia: feasibility randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Afia Ali, Cheryl Francis, Sarah Hoare, Joanna Carter, Nia Goulden, Caroline S Clarke, Georgina Charlesworth, Zoe Hoare, Danny Acton, Shafia Khanum, Akinwande Onafalujo, Adebayo Jejeloye, Kate Brackley, Elisa Aguirre, Aimee Spector\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/bjo.2025.10764\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Group cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) has been shown to improve cognition and quality of life of people with dementia in multiple trials, but there has been scant research involving people with intellectual disability and dementia. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of group CST for this population.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess the feasibility of participant recruitment and retention, the appropriateness of outcome measures, and the feasibility of group CST (adherence, fidelity, acceptability), as well as the feasibility of collecting data for an economic evaluation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants were recruited from six National Health Service trusts in England and randomised to group CST plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU only. Cognition, quality of life, depression, and use of health and social care services were measured at baseline and at 8-9 weeks. Qualitative interviews with participants, carers and facilitators were used to explore facilitators of and barriers to delivery of CST. Trial registration number: ISRCTN88614460.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We obtained consent from 46 participants, and 34 (73.9%) were randomised: 18 to CST and 16 to TAU. All randomised participants completed follow-up. Completion rates of outcome measures (including health economic measures) were adequate; 75.7% of sessions were delivered, and 56% of participants attended ten or more. Fidelity of delivery was of moderate quality. CST was acceptable to all stakeholders; barriers included travel distance, carer availability and sessions needing further adaptations. The estimated cost per participant of delivering CST was £602.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were multiple challenges including recruitment issues, a large dropout rate before randomisation and practical issues affecting attendance. These issues would need to be addressed before conducting a larger trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"volume\":\"11 5\",\"pages\":\"e168\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12344426/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJPsych Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10764\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJPsych Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2025.10764","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在多项试验中,群体认知刺激疗法(CST)已被证明可以改善痴呆症患者的认知和生活质量,但涉及智力残疾和痴呆症患者的研究很少。本研究旨在评估对该人群进行CST组随机对照试验的可行性。目的:评估参与者招募和保留的可行性,结果测量的适当性,群体CST(依从性,保真度,可接受性)的可行性,以及收集数据进行经济评估的可行性。方法:参与者从英格兰的六个国家卫生服务信托基金招募,随机分为CST加常规治疗组(TAU)或仅TAU组。在基线和8-9周时测量认知、生活质量、抑郁以及健康和社会护理服务的使用情况。通过对参与者、护理人员和辅导员的定性访谈,探讨了实施CST的促进因素和障碍。试验注册号:ISRCTN88614460。结果:我们获得了46名参与者的同意,34名(73.9%)被随机分配:18名接受CST治疗,16名接受TAU治疗。所有随机受试者均完成随访。结果措施(包括卫生经济措施)的完成率足够;75.7%的课程是交付的,56%的参与者参加了10次或更多。交付保真度为中等质量。所有利益相关者都可以接受CST;障碍包括旅行距离、护理人员的可用性和需要进一步调整的课程。每个参与者交付CST的估计成本为602英镑。结论:存在多重挑战,包括招募问题,随机化前的高辍学率和影响出勤率的实际问题。在进行更大规模的试验之前,需要解决这些问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Group cognitive stimulation therapy for people with intellectual disability and dementia: feasibility randomised controlled trial.

Background: Group cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) has been shown to improve cognition and quality of life of people with dementia in multiple trials, but there has been scant research involving people with intellectual disability and dementia. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of group CST for this population.

Aims: To assess the feasibility of participant recruitment and retention, the appropriateness of outcome measures, and the feasibility of group CST (adherence, fidelity, acceptability), as well as the feasibility of collecting data for an economic evaluation.

Method: Participants were recruited from six National Health Service trusts in England and randomised to group CST plus treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU only. Cognition, quality of life, depression, and use of health and social care services were measured at baseline and at 8-9 weeks. Qualitative interviews with participants, carers and facilitators were used to explore facilitators of and barriers to delivery of CST. Trial registration number: ISRCTN88614460.

Results: We obtained consent from 46 participants, and 34 (73.9%) were randomised: 18 to CST and 16 to TAU. All randomised participants completed follow-up. Completion rates of outcome measures (including health economic measures) were adequate; 75.7% of sessions were delivered, and 56% of participants attended ten or more. Fidelity of delivery was of moderate quality. CST was acceptable to all stakeholders; barriers included travel distance, carer availability and sessions needing further adaptations. The estimated cost per participant of delivering CST was £602.

Conclusions: There were multiple challenges including recruitment issues, a large dropout rate before randomisation and practical issues affecting attendance. These issues would need to be addressed before conducting a larger trial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BJPsych Open
BJPsych Open Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
610
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Announcing the launch of BJPsych Open, an exciting new open access online journal for the publication of all methodologically sound research in all fields of psychiatry and disciplines related to mental health. BJPsych Open will maintain the highest scientific, peer review, and ethical standards of the BJPsych, ensure rapid publication for authors whilst sharing research with no cost to the reader in the spirit of maximising dissemination and public engagement. Cascade submission from BJPsych to BJPsych Open is a new option for authors whose first priority is rapid online publication with the prestigious BJPsych brand. Authors will also retain copyright to their works under a creative commons license.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信