Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT
Background: Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. Objectives: This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessmen...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
NIHR Journals Library
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | Health Technology Assessment |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25190 |
| _version_ | 1819160854675849216 |
|---|---|
| author | Rebecca Gathercole Rosie Bradley Emma Harper Lucy Davies Lynn Pank Natalie Lam Anna Davies Emma Talbot Emma Hooper Rachel Winson Bethany Scutt Victoria Ordonez Montano Samantha Nunn Grace Lavelle Matthew Lariviere Shashivadan Hirani Stefano Brini Andrew Bateman Peter Bentham Alistair Burns Barbara Dunk Kirsty Forsyth Chris Fox Catherine Henderson Martin Knapp Iracema Leroi Stanton Newman John O’Brien Fiona Poland John Woolham Richard Gray Robert Howard |
| author_facet | Rebecca Gathercole Rosie Bradley Emma Harper Lucy Davies Lynn Pank Natalie Lam Anna Davies Emma Talbot Emma Hooper Rachel Winson Bethany Scutt Victoria Ordonez Montano Samantha Nunn Grace Lavelle Matthew Lariviere Shashivadan Hirani Stefano Brini Andrew Bateman Peter Bentham Alistair Burns Barbara Dunk Kirsty Forsyth Chris Fox Catherine Henderson Martin Knapp Iracema Leroi Stanton Newman John O’Brien Fiona Poland John Woolham Richard Gray Robert Howard |
| author_sort | Rebecca Gathercole |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. Objectives: This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated. Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Setting: This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities. Participants: Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package). Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview. Results: Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£909, 95% confidence interval –£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£3545; 95% confidence interval –£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval –0.204 to –0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks. Limitations: Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events. Conclusions: A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants’ health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants’ EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Future work: Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T17:03:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d12126d002194de2bf1160a89d5c136d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1366-5278 2046-4924 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T17:03:04Z |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | NIHR Journals Library |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Health Technology Assessment |
| spelling | doaj.art-d12126d002194de2bf1160a89d5c136d2022-12-21T18:19:18ZengNIHR Journals LibraryHealth Technology Assessment1366-52782046-49242021-03-01251910.3310/hta2519010/50/02Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCTRebecca Gathercole0Rosie Bradley1Emma Harper2Lucy Davies3Lynn Pank4Natalie Lam5Anna Davies6Emma Talbot7Emma Hooper8Rachel Winson9Bethany Scutt10Victoria Ordonez Montano11Samantha Nunn12Grace Lavelle13Matthew Lariviere14Shashivadan Hirani15Stefano Brini16Andrew Bateman17Peter Bentham18Alistair Burns19Barbara Dunk20Kirsty Forsyth21Chris Fox22Catherine Henderson23Martin Knapp24Iracema Leroi25Stanton Newman26John O’Brien27Fiona Poland28John Woolham29Richard Gray30Robert Howard31Department of Old Age Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UKMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UKNorfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, Stowmarket, UKLancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UKCambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UKDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UKHertfordshire Community NHS Trust, Watford, UKCambridgeshire Community Services NHS Trust, Cambridge, UKDepartment of Old Age Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, UKCentre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UKSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UKSchool of Health and Social Care, University of Essex, Colchester, UKBirmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UKFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UKSchool of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UKNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UKCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UKCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UKGlobal Brain Health Institute, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, IrelandSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UKDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKSchool of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UKNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health & Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London, London, UKMedical Research Council Population Health Research Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UKBackground: Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. Objectives: This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated. Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Setting: This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities. Participants: Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package). Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview. Results: Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£909, 95% confidence interval –£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£3545; 95% confidence interval –£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval –0.204 to –0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks. Limitations: Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events. Conclusions: A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants’ health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants’ EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Future work: Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25190independent livingcaregiversquality-adjusted life-yearscost–benefit analysistechnology assessmentquality of lifeactivities of daily livinganxietyinstitutionalisationdementia |
| spellingShingle | Rebecca Gathercole Rosie Bradley Emma Harper Lucy Davies Lynn Pank Natalie Lam Anna Davies Emma Talbot Emma Hooper Rachel Winson Bethany Scutt Victoria Ordonez Montano Samantha Nunn Grace Lavelle Matthew Lariviere Shashivadan Hirani Stefano Brini Andrew Bateman Peter Bentham Alistair Burns Barbara Dunk Kirsty Forsyth Chris Fox Catherine Henderson Martin Knapp Iracema Leroi Stanton Newman John O’Brien Fiona Poland John Woolham Richard Gray Robert Howard Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT Health Technology Assessment independent living caregivers quality-adjusted life-years cost–benefit analysis technology assessment quality of life activities of daily living anxiety institutionalisation dementia |
| title | Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT |
| title_full | Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT |
| title_fullStr | Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT |
| title_short | Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT |
| title_sort | assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia the attila rct |
| topic | independent living caregivers quality-adjusted life-years cost–benefit analysis technology assessment quality of life activities of daily living anxiety institutionalisation dementia |
| url | https://doi.org/10.3310/hta25190 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rebeccagathercole assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT rosiebradley assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT emmaharper assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT lucydavies assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT lynnpank assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT natalielam assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT annadavies assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT emmatalbot assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT emmahooper assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT rachelwinson assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT bethanyscutt assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT victoriaordonezmontano assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT samanthanunn assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT gracelavelle assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT matthewlariviere assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT shashivadanhirani assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT stefanobrini assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT andrewbateman assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT peterbentham assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT alistairburns assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT barbaradunk assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT kirstyforsyth assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT chrisfox assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT catherinehenderson assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT martinknapp assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT iracemaleroi assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT stantonnewman assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT johnobrien assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT fionapoland assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT johnwoolham assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT richardgray assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct AT roberthoward assistivetechnologyandtelecaretomaintainindependentlivingathomeforpeoplewithdementiatheattilarct |