Objective To assess whether a manual based coping strategy compared with treatment as usual reduces depression and anxiety symptoms in carers of family members with dementia.Design Randomised, parallel group, superiority trial.Setting Three mental health community services and one neurological outpatient dementia service in London and Essex, UK.Participants 260 carers of family members with dementia.Intervention A manual based coping intervention comprising eight sessions and delivered by supervised psychology graduates to carers of family members with dementia. The programme consisted of psychoeducation about dementia, carers’ stress, and where to get emotional support; understanding behaviours of the family member being cared for, and behavioural management techniques; changing unhelpful thoughts; promoting acceptance; assertive communication; relaxation; planning for the future; increasing pleasant activities; and maintaining skills learnt. Carers practised these techniques at home, using the manual and relaxation CDs.Main outcome measures Affective symptoms (hospital anxiety and depression total score) at four and eight months. Secondary outcomes were depression and anxiety caseness on the hospital anxiety and depression scale; quality of life of both the carer (health status questionnaire, mental health) and the recipient of care (quality of life-Alzheimer’s disease); and potentially abusive behaviour by the carer towards the recipient of care (modified conflict tactics scale).Results 260 carers were recruited; 173 were randomised to the intervention and 87 to treatment as usual. Mean total scores on the hospital anxiety and depression scale were lower in the intervention group than in the treatment as usual group over the eight month evaluation period: adjusted difference in means −1.80 points (95% confidence interval −3.29 to −0.31; P=0.02) and absolute difference in means −2.0 points. Carers in the intervention group were less likely to have case level depression (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.76) and there was a non-significant trend towards reduced case level anxiety (0.30, 0.08 to 1.05). Carers’ quality of life was higher in the intervention group (difference in means 4.09, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 7.83) but not for the recipient of care (difference in means 0.59, −0.72 to 1.89). Carers in the intervention group reported less abusive behaviour towards the recipient of care compared with those in the treatment as usual group (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 1.23), although this was not significant.Conclusions A manual based coping strategy was effective in reducing affective symptoms and case level depression in carers of family members with dementia. The carers’ quality of life also improved.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISCTRN70017938.

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme 08/14/06.

BackgroundAgitation is reportedly the most common neuropsychiatric symptom in care home residents with dementia.AimsTo report, in a large care home survey, prevalence and determinants of agitation in residents with dementia.MethodWe interviewed staff from 86 care homes between 13 January 2014 and 12 November 2015 about residents with dementia with respect to agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)), quality of life (DEMQOL-proxy) and dementia severity (Clinical Dementia Rating). We also interviewed residents and their relatives. We used random effects models adjusted for resident age, gender, dementia severity and care home type with CMAI as a continuous score.ResultsOut of 3053 (86.2%) residents who had dementia, 1489 (52.7%) eligible residents participated. Fifteen per cent of residents with very mild dementia had clinically significant agitation compared with 33% with mild (odds ratios (ORs)=4.49 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.30) and 45% with moderate or severe dementia (OR=6.95 95% CI=3.63, 13.31 and OR=6.23 95% CI=3.25, 11.94, respectively). More agitation was associated with lower quality of life (regression coefficient (rc)=−0.53; 95% CI=−0.61, −0.46) but not with staffing or resident ratio (rc=0.03; 95% CI=−0.04, 0.11), level of residents’ engagement in home activities (rc=3.21; 95% CI=−0.82, 7.21) or family visit numbers (rc=−0.03; 95% CI=−0.15, 0.08). It was correlated with antipsychotic use (rc=6.45; 95% CI=3.98, 8.91).ConclusionsCare home residents with dementia and agitation have lower quality of life. More staffing time and activities as currently provided are not associated with lower agitation levels. New approaches to develop staff skills in understanding and responding to the underlying reasons for individual resident’s agitation require development and testing.Declaration of interestNone.Copyright and usage© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license.

ObjectivesThis review aims to understand what elements of psychosocial interventions are associated with improved outcomes for people with dementia to inform implementation in care homes.DesignA systematic review of qualitative and quantitative intervention studies was undertaken.Eligibility criteria for included studiesWe included primary research studies evaluating psychosocial interventions that trained care home staff to deliver a specific intervention or that sought to change how staff delivered care to residents with dementia and reported staff and resident qualitative or quantitative outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO and EMBASE electronic databases and hand-searched references up to May 2016. Quality of included papers was rated independently by 2 authors, using operationalised checklists derived from standard criteria. We discussed discrepancies and reached consensus. We conducted a narrative synthesis of quantitative and a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings to find what was effective immediately and in sustaining change.ResultsWe identified 49 papers fulfilling predetermined criteria. We found a lack of higher quality quantitative evidence that effects could be sustained after psychosocial interventions finished with no evidence that interventions continued to work after 6 months. Qualitative findings suggest that staff valued interventions focusing on getting to know, understand and connect with residents with dementia. Successful elements of interventions included interactive training, post-training support, aiming to train most staff, retaining written materials afterwards and building interventions into routine care.ConclusionsPsychosocial interventions can improve outcomes for staff and residents with dementia in care homes; however, many trial results are limited. Synthesis of qualitative findings highlight core components of interventions that staff value and feel improve care. These findings provide useful evidence to inform the development of sustainable, effective psychosocial interventions in care homes.Trial registration numberCRD42015017621.

Objective To assess whether the START (STrAtegies for RelatTives) intervention added to treatment as usual is cost effective compared with usual treatment alone.Design Cost effectiveness analysis nested within a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Setting Three mental health and one neurological outpatient dementia service in London and Essex, UK.Participants Family carers of people with dementia.Intervention Eight session, manual based, coping intervention delivered by supervised psychology graduates to family carers of people with dementia added to usual treatment, compared with usual treatment alone.Primary outcome measures Costs measured from a health and social care perspective were analysed alongside the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total score (HADS-T) of affective symptoms and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in cost effectiveness analyses over eight months from baseline.Results Of the 260 participants recruited to the study, 173 were randomised to the START intervention, and 87 to usual treatment alone. Mean HADS-T scores were lower in the intervention group than the usual treatment group over the 8 month evaluation period (mean difference −1.79 (95% CI −3.32 to −0.33)), indicating better outcomes associated with the START intervention. There was a small improvement in health related quality of life as measured by QALYs (0.03 (−0.01 to 0.08)). Costs were no different between the intervention and usual treatment groups (£252 (−28 to 565) higher for START group). The cost effectiveness calculations suggested that START had a greater than 99% chance of being cost effective compared with usual treatment alone at a willingness to pay threshold of £30 000 per QALY gained, and a high probability of cost effectiveness on the HADS-T measure.Conclusions The manual based coping intervention START, when added to treatment as usual, was cost effective compared with treatment as usual alone by reference to both outcome measures (affective symptoms for family carers, and carer based QALYs).Trial Registration ISCTRN 70017938