D-CARE: The Dementia Care Study: Design of a Pragmatic Trial of the Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Health System-Based Versus Community-Based Dementia Care Versus Usual Dementia Care.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Although several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is the PWD/caregiver dyad. SETTING: Four clinical trial sites (CTSs) based in academic and clinical health systems. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2,150 English- or Spanish-speaking PWD who are not receiving hospice or residing in a nursing home and their caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Eighteen months of (1) HSDC provided by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant dementia care specialist who works within the health system, or (2) CBDC provided by a social worker or nurse care consultant who works at a community-based organization, or (3) UC with as needed referral to the Alzheimer's Association Helpline. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes: PWD behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity and Modified Caregiver Strain Index scales. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: NPI-Q Distress, caregiver unmet needs and confidence, and caregiver depressive symptoms. Tertiary outcomes: PWD long-term nursing home placement rates, caregiver-reported PWD functional status, cognition, goal attainment, "time spent at home," Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver, a composite measure of clinical benefit, Quality of Life of persons with dementia, Positive Aspects of Caregiving, and cost effectiveness using intervention costs and Medicare claims. RESULTS: The results will be reported in the spring of 2024. CONCLUSION: D-CARE will address whether emphasis on clinical support and tighter integration with other medical services has greater benefit than emphasis on social support that is tied more closely to community resources. It will also assess the effectiveness of both interventions compared with UC and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of each intervention.

IRB Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: A National Survey of IRB Chairpersons.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is becoming increasingly common. However, there is little evidence regarding what novel ethical challenges, if any, are posed by PCOR with relevance to institutional review board (IRB) oversight and human subjects protections. This article reports the results of a national survey of all IRB chairpersons from research-intensive institutions in the United States. Findings address the responsibilities of IRBs and the challenges associated with PCOR review and oversight. IRB chairpersons varied in their judgment of PCOR's overall value to the scientific enterprise and to research at their institution. Furthermore, 27% of respondents considered patients serving in nontraditional roles to be research subjects even when they are not enrolled in research. There was also variation in the training and safeguards their IRBs require for patient partners. Our results suggest that guidance should be developed around ethical and regulatory issues associated with PCOR oversight.