...
首页> 外文期刊>BMJ Open >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
【24h】

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

机译:为什么在德国的医疗保健背景下,对痴呆症患者进行有效的荷兰综合心理社会干预无效?从过程评估以及多中心RCT中吸取的教训

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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.
机译:背景技术在德国的多中心随机对照试验(RCT)中未发现荷兰痴呆症社区职业治疗计划对患者日常功能的积极影响。目的在以下方面评估德国RCT中对主要结局的可能影响修改:(1)参与者特征,(2)治疗效果和(3)医疗服务利用; (4)比较德国研究和原始荷兰研究的设计和主要结果。方法(1)通过探索性ANCOVA和回归分析分析参与者基线数据对主要结局的影响。 (2)治疗师完成了关于情境和表现问题的问卷调查。通过定性内容分析和焦点小组讨论确定了主要问题。通过回归分析评估主要结局与参与者依从性得分和治疗效果的相关性。 (3)显着的群体差异控制了医疗服务的利用率。 (4)确定了荷兰和德国研究设计的差异,并在项目层面对比了主要结果。结果(1)参与者特征不能解释超过5%的结果差异。 (2)一些主动干预成分的治疗效果较差,但与主要结局并没有显着相关。 (3)在医疗资源利用上没有显着的群体差异。 (4)与荷兰的等待对照组相比,德国对照组的积极干预可能会减少当前RCT中的组差异。德国患者在基线时表现出较高的独立性,在日常生活中的仪器活动方面改善较少。结论结果的差异可以用更积极的对照治疗,部分不良的实验治疗和较少的德国改良空间来解释。未来的跨国转移应通过评估干预措施的适用性和目标国家特定患者需求的试点研究来准备。试验注册国际临床试验注册平台DRKS00000053。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号