Cost-utility analysis of community occupational therapy in dementia (COTiD-UK) versus usual care: Results from VALID, a multi-site randomised controlled trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: A community-based occupational therapy intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia and their family carers: the Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK version (COTiD-UK); and Treatment as usual (TAU) were randomly assigned to 468 pairs (each comprising a person with dementia and a family carer) in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia (VALID) randomised controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-utility of the COTiD-UK intervention compared to TAU, using data from the VALID RCT. METHODS: We performed a cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per person with dementia and carer for both treatments over a 26 weeks' time horizon based on resource use data and utility values collected in the trial. RESULTS: Taking the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, including costs and benefits to the person with dementia only, measuring Health Related Quality of Life based on Dementia Quality of Life scale (DEMQOL), accounting for missing data and adjusting for baseline values, there was a significant difference in costs between COTiD-UK and TAU (mean incremental cost for COTiD-UK £784 (95% CI £233 to £1334)), but no significant difference in outcomes (mean QALYs gained 0.00664 (95% CI -0.00404, 0.01732)). The Incremental Net Monetary Benefit (INMB) for COTiD-UK versus TAU was negative at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20000 (mean -£651, 95% CI -£878 to -£424) or £30000 (mean -£585, 95% CI -£824 to -£345). Extensive sensitivity analyses confirmed the results. CONCLUSIONS: This community-based occupational therapy intervention has a very low probability of being cost-effective.

Community Occupational Therapy for people with dementia and family carers (COTiD-UK) versus treatment as usual (Valuing Active Life in Dementia [VALID]) study: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate the clinical effectiveness of Community Occupational Therapy for people with dementia and family carers-UK version (Community Occupational Therapy in Dementia-UK version [COTiD-UK]) relative to treatment as usual (TAU). We hypothesised that COTiD-UK would improve the ability of people with dementia to perform activities of daily living (ADL), and family carers' sense of competence, compared with TAU. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study design was a multicentre, 2-arm, parallel-group, assessor-masked, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with internal pilot. It was conducted in 15 sites across England from September 2014 to January 2018. People with a diagnosis of mild to moderate dementia living in their own home were recruited in pairs with a family carer who provided domestic or personal support for at least 4 hours per week. Pairs were randomised to either receive COTiD-UK, which comprised 10 hours of occupational therapy delivered over 10 weeks in the person with dementia's home or TAU, which comprised the usual local service provision that may or may not include standard occupational therapy. The primary outcome was the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) score at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes for the person with dementia included the following: the BADLS scores at 52 and 78 weeks, cognition, quality of life, and mood; and for the family carer: sense of competence and mood; plus the number of social contacts and leisure activities for both partners. Participants were analysed by treatment allocated. A total of 468 pairs were recruited: people with dementia ranged from 55 to 97 years with a mean age of 78.6 and family carers ranged from 29 to 94 with a mean of 69.1 years. Of the people with dementia, 74.8% were married and 19.2% lived alone. Of the family carers, 72.6% were spouses, and 22.2% were adult children. On randomisation, 249 pairs were assigned to COTiD-UK (62% people with dementia and 23% carers were male) and 219 to TAU (52% people with dementia and 32% carers were male). At the 26 weeks follow-up, data were available for 364 pairs (77.8%). The BADLS score at 26 weeks did not differ significantly between groups (adjusted mean difference estimate 0.35, 95% CI -0.81 to 1.51; p = 0.55). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the groups. In total, 91% of the activity-based goals set by the pairs taking part in the COTiD-UK intervention were fully or partially achieved by the final COTiD-UK session. Study limitations include the following: Intervention fidelity was moderate but varied across and within sites, and the reliance on primarily proxy data focused on measuring the level of functional or cognitive impairment which may not truly reflect the actual performance and views of the person living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Providing community occupational therapy as delivered in this study did not improve ADL performance, cognition, quality of life, or mood in people with dementia nor sense of competence or mood in family carers. Future research should consider measuring person-centred outcomes that are more meaningful and closely aligned to participants' priorities, such as goal achievement or the quantity and quality of activity engagement and participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10748953.

Reasons for nonparticipation in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia randomised controlled trial of a dyadic occupational therapy intervention: An interview study.

OBJECTIVES: There is currently little known about why people decline to participate in dyadic, psychosocial dementia research. This interview study aims to explore the reasons why people declined to participate in the Valuing Active Life in Dementia research trial. METHODS: Ten family carers of people with dementia, who were part of a dyad that had declined to take part in the randomised controlled trial, participated in qualitative telephone interviews to explore their reasons for declining. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes. FINDINGS: Two themes with related sub-themes were identified: (1) Protectiveness - protecting the person with dementia, themselves as carers and their current lifestyle; (2) 'It's not for us' - the time commitment, and the possible unsuitability of the intervention, was seen to outweigh the perceived benefit of taking part. People with dementia were not always involved in the decision-making process, with carers stating the decision not to participate was made in the usual way as all their decisions. No apparent differences between the spousal and the child carers were apparent in the small sample. CONCLUSION: Recruitment to randomised controlled trials can be considered difficult or unfair because some participants will miss out on the desired intervention. However, this study shows that concern about the time and inconvenience of being involved in the trial can put people off research participation. Identifying possible reasons for declining research participation contributes to the design of future trials and recruitment strategies, so that the potential benefit is considered relative to the time and effort involved. Offering research opportunities to people with dementia and their families at the right stage of the dementia trajectory for their needs, facilitating personalised recruitment strategies with finely tailored researcher communication skills should help maximise recruitment, reduce attrition and deliver a more successful trial.

Recruiting hard to reach populations to studies: breaking the silence: an example from a study that recruited people with dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To share the challenges of recruiting people with dementia to studies, using experiences from one recently completed trial as an exemplar. BACKGROUND: Research publications always cite participant numbers but the effort expended to achieve the sample size is rarely reported, even when the study involved recruiting a hard to reach population. A multisite study of a psychosocial intervention for people with dementia illustrates the challenges. This study recruited 468 'dyads' (a person with dementia and a family carer together) from 15 sites but the time taken to achieve this was longer than originally estimated. This led to a study extension and the need for additional sites. Recruitment data revealed that certain sites were more successful than others, but why? Can the knowledge gained be used to inform other studies? METHODS: Secondary analysis of routinely collected recruitment data from three purposefully selected sites was examined to understand the strategies used and identify successful approaches. FINDINGS: At all three sites, the pool of potential recruits funnelled to a few participants. It took two sites 18 months longer than the third to achieve recruitment numbers despite additional efforts. Explanations given by potential participants for declining to take part included ill health, reporting they were 'managing', time constraints, adjusting to a diagnosis of dementia and burden of study procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Successful recruitment of people with dementia to studies, as one example of a hard to reach group, requires multiple strategies and close working between researchers and clinical services. It requires a detailed understanding of the needs and perspectives of the specific population and knowledge about how individuals can be supported to participate in research. Experiences of recruitment should be disseminated so that knowledge generated can be used to inform the planning and implementation of future research studies.