Cargando…

Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT

BACKGROUND: The positive effects of the Dutch Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia programme on patients' daily functioning were not found in a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Germany. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible effect modification on the primary outcome within the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian, Graff, Maud, Leonhart, Rainer, Hüll, Michael, Rikkert, Marcel Olde, Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3191434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000094
_version_ 1782213656882184192
author Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian
Graff, Maud
Leonhart, Rainer
Hüll, Michael
Rikkert, Marcel Olde
Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra
author_facet Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian
Graff, Maud
Leonhart, Rainer
Hüll, Michael
Rikkert, Marcel Olde
Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra
author_sort Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The positive effects of the Dutch Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia programme on patients' daily functioning were not found in a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Germany. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible effect modification on the primary outcome within the German RCT with regard to (1) participant characteristics, (2) treatment performance and (3) healthcare service utilisation; and (4) to compare the design and primary outcome between the German and the original Dutch study. METHODS: (1) The impact of participant baseline data on the primary outcome was analysed in exploratory ANCOVA and regression analyses. (2) Therapists completed questionnaires on context and performance problems. The main problems were identified by a qualitative content analysis and focus-group discussion. Associations of the primary outcome with scores of participant adherence and treatment performance were evaluated by regression analysis. (3) Utilisation rates of healthcare services were controlled for significant group differences. (4) Differences in the Dutch and German study design were identified, and the primary outcome was contrasted at the item level. RESULTS: (1) Participant characteristics could not explain more than 5% of outcome variance. (2) The treatment performance of some active intervention components was poor but not significantly associated with the primary outcome. (3) There were no significant group differences in the utilisation of healthcare resources. (4) In contrast to the Dutch waiting-control group, the active intervention in the German control group may have reduced group differences in the current RCT. The German patients demonstrated a higher independence at baseline and less improvement in instrumental activities of daily living. CONCLUSION: The differences in outcome may be explained by a more active control treatment, partially poor experimental treatment and less room for improvement in the German sample. Future cross-national transfers should be prepared by pilot studies assessing the applicability of the intervention and patient needs specific to the target country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, DRKS00000053.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3191434
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31914342011-10-13 Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian Graff, Maud Leonhart, Rainer Hüll, Michael Rikkert, Marcel Olde Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra BMJ Open Neurology BACKGROUND: The positive effects of the Dutch Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia programme on patients' daily functioning were not found in a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Germany. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate possible effect modification on the primary outcome within the German RCT with regard to (1) participant characteristics, (2) treatment performance and (3) healthcare service utilisation; and (4) to compare the design and primary outcome between the German and the original Dutch study. METHODS: (1) The impact of participant baseline data on the primary outcome was analysed in exploratory ANCOVA and regression analyses. (2) Therapists completed questionnaires on context and performance problems. The main problems were identified by a qualitative content analysis and focus-group discussion. Associations of the primary outcome with scores of participant adherence and treatment performance were evaluated by regression analysis. (3) Utilisation rates of healthcare services were controlled for significant group differences. (4) Differences in the Dutch and German study design were identified, and the primary outcome was contrasted at the item level. RESULTS: (1) Participant characteristics could not explain more than 5% of outcome variance. (2) The treatment performance of some active intervention components was poor but not significantly associated with the primary outcome. (3) There were no significant group differences in the utilisation of healthcare resources. (4) In contrast to the Dutch waiting-control group, the active intervention in the German control group may have reduced group differences in the current RCT. The German patients demonstrated a higher independence at baseline and less improvement in instrumental activities of daily living. CONCLUSION: The differences in outcome may be explained by a more active control treatment, partially poor experimental treatment and less room for improvement in the German sample. Future cross-national transfers should be prepared by pilot studies assessing the applicability of the intervention and patient needs specific to the target country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, DRKS00000053. BMJ Group 2011-08-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3191434/ /pubmed/22021759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000094 Text en © 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Neurology
Voigt-Radloff, Sebastian
Graff, Maud
Leonhart, Rainer
Hüll, Michael
Rikkert, Marcel Olde
Vernooij-Dassen, Myrra
Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT
title Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT
title_full Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT
title_fullStr Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT
title_full_unstemmed Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT
title_short Why did an effective Dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the German healthcare context? Lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre RCT
title_sort why did an effective dutch complex psycho-social intervention for people with dementia not work in the german healthcare context? lessons learnt from a process evaluation alongside a multicentre rct
topic Neurology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3191434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000094
work_keys_str_mv AT voigtradloffsebastian whydidaneffectivedutchcomplexpsychosocialinterventionforpeoplewithdementianotworkinthegermanhealthcarecontextlessonslearntfromaprocessevaluationalongsideamulticentrerct
AT graffmaud whydidaneffectivedutchcomplexpsychosocialinterventionforpeoplewithdementianotworkinthegermanhealthcarecontextlessonslearntfromaprocessevaluationalongsideamulticentrerct
AT leonhartrainer whydidaneffectivedutchcomplexpsychosocialinterventionforpeoplewithdementianotworkinthegermanhealthcarecontextlessonslearntfromaprocessevaluationalongsideamulticentrerct
AT hullmichael whydidaneffectivedutchcomplexpsychosocialinterventionforpeoplewithdementianotworkinthegermanhealthcarecontextlessonslearntfromaprocessevaluationalongsideamulticentrerct
AT rikkertmarcelolde whydidaneffectivedutchcomplexpsychosocialinterventionforpeoplewithdementianotworkinthegermanhealthcarecontextlessonslearntfromaprocessevaluationalongsideamulticentrerct
AT vernooijdassenmyrra whydidaneffectivedutchcomplexpsychosocialinterventionforpeoplewithdementianotworkinthegermanhealthcarecontextlessonslearntfromaprocessevaluationalongsideamulticentrerct