Selecting outcomes for pragmatic clinical trials in dementia care: The IMPACT Collaboratory iLibrary.
Alzheimer's disease
clinical trials
dementia
Journal
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
ISSN: 1532-5415
Titre abrégé: J Am Geriatr Soc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Nov 2023
02 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
23
09
2023
accepted:
02
10
2023
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
2
11
2023
entrez:
2
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Many interventions improve care and outcomes for people with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet are never disseminated. Pragmatic trials facilitate the adoption and dissemination of best practices, but gaps in pragmatic outcome measurement are a critical obstacle. Our objectives are (1) to describe the development and structure of the IMbedded Pragmatic ADRD Clinical Trials Collaboratory (IMPACT) iLibrary of potential outcome measures for ADRD pragmatic trials, and (2) to assess their pragmatic characteristics. We identified potential outcome measures from several sources: a database of administrative and clinical outcome measures from ADRD clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, published reviews, and IMPACT pilot pragmatic trial outcome measures. The iLibrary reports (a) number of items, (b) completion time, (c) readability for diverse populations, (d) cost or copyright barriers to use, (e) method of administration, (f) assessor training burden, and (g) feasibility of data capture and interpretation in routine care; a summary of pragmatic characteristics of each outcome measure (high, moderate, low); items or descriptions of items; and links to primary citations regarding development or psychometric properties. We included 140 outcome measures in the iLibrary: 66 administrative (100% were pragmatic) and 74 clinical (52% were pragmatic). The most commonly addressed outcome domains from administrative assessments included physical function, quality of care or communication concerns, and psychological symptoms or distress behaviors. The most commonly addressed outcome domains from clinical assessments were psychological symptoms or distress behaviors, physical function, cognitive function, and health-related quality of life. Pragmatic outcome measures are brief, meaningful to diverse populations, easily scored and interpreted by clinicians, and available in electronic format for analysis. The iLibrary can facilitate the selection of measures for a wide range of outcomes relevant to people with ADRD and their care partners.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Many interventions improve care and outcomes for people with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet are never disseminated. Pragmatic trials facilitate the adoption and dissemination of best practices, but gaps in pragmatic outcome measurement are a critical obstacle. Our objectives are (1) to describe the development and structure of the IMbedded Pragmatic ADRD Clinical Trials Collaboratory (IMPACT) iLibrary of potential outcome measures for ADRD pragmatic trials, and (2) to assess their pragmatic characteristics.
METHODS
METHODS
We identified potential outcome measures from several sources: a database of administrative and clinical outcome measures from ADRD clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, published reviews, and IMPACT pilot pragmatic trial outcome measures. The iLibrary reports (a) number of items, (b) completion time, (c) readability for diverse populations, (d) cost or copyright barriers to use, (e) method of administration, (f) assessor training burden, and (g) feasibility of data capture and interpretation in routine care; a summary of pragmatic characteristics of each outcome measure (high, moderate, low); items or descriptions of items; and links to primary citations regarding development or psychometric properties.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 140 outcome measures in the iLibrary: 66 administrative (100% were pragmatic) and 74 clinical (52% were pragmatic). The most commonly addressed outcome domains from administrative assessments included physical function, quality of care or communication concerns, and psychological symptoms or distress behaviors. The most commonly addressed outcome domains from clinical assessments were psychological symptoms or distress behaviors, physical function, cognitive function, and health-related quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Pragmatic outcome measures are brief, meaningful to diverse populations, easily scored and interpreted by clinicians, and available in electronic format for analysis. The iLibrary can facilitate the selection of measures for a wide range of outcomes relevant to people with ADRD and their care partners.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : U54 AG063546
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : U54AG063546
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The American Geriatrics Society.
Références
Rajan KB, Weuve J, Barnes LL, McAninch EA, Wilson RS, Evans DA. Population estimate of people with clinical Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment in the United States (2020-2060). Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17(12):1966-1975. doi:10.1002/alz.12362
Aranda MP, Kremer IN, Hinton L, et al. Impact of dementia: health disparities, population trends, care interventions, and economic costs. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(7):1774-1783. doi:10.1111/jgs.17345
Drabo EF, Barthold D, Joyce G, Ferido P, Chang Chui H, Zissimopoulos J. Longitudinal analysis of dementia diagnosis and specialty care among racially diverse Medicare beneficiaries. Alzheimers Dement. 2019;15(11):1402-1411. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2019.07.005
Jutkowitz E, Kane RL, Gaugler JE, MacLehose RF, Dowd B, Kuntz KM. Societal and family lifetime cost of dementia: implications for policy. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(10):2169-2175. doi:10.1111/jgs.15043
Kelley AS, McGarry K, Gorges R, Skinner JS. The burden of health care costs for patients with dementia in the last 5 years of life. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(10):729-736. doi:10.7326/m15-0381
National Research Summit on Care Services and Supports for Persons with Dementia and their Caregivers. Report to the National Advisory Council on Alzheimer's Research, Care, and Services. 2018. https://aspe.hhs.gov/pdf-report/national-research-summit-care-services-and-supports-persons-dementia-and-their-caregivers-final-summit-report
Butler M, Gaugler J, Talley K, et al. Care Interventions for People Living with Dementia and their Caregivers. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 231. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-Based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-00008-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC023. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 2020.
Zimmerman S, Resnick B, Ouslander J, et al. Pragmatic trials and improving long-term care: recommendations from a National Institutes of Health conference. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022;70(3):688-694. doi:10.1111/jgs.17697
Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350:h2147. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2147
Welsing PM, Oude Rengerink K, Collier S, et al. Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 6. Outcome measures in the real world. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;90:99-107. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.022
Baier RR, Jutkowitz E, Mitchell SL, McCreedy E, Mor V. Readiness assessment for pragmatic trials (RAPT): a model to assess the readiness of an intervention for testing in a pragmatic trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):156. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0794-9
Kroenke K, Monahan PO, Kean J. Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1085-1092. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.023
Teno JM, Hanson LC, Lima JC, Saliba D. Protecting seriously ill populations during pragmatic clinical trials. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(7):2290-2296. doi:10.1111/jgs.18333
Hanson LC, Bennett AV, Jonsson M, et al. Selecting outcomes to ensure pragmatic trials are relevant to people living with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(S2):S55-S61. doi:10.1111/jgs.16619
Taljaard M, Li F, Qin B, et al. Methodological challenges in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: opportunities for improvement. Clinical Trials. 2022;19(1):86-96. doi:10.1177/17407745211046672
Hunt LJ, Lee SJ, Harrison KL, Smith AK. Secondary analysis of existing datasets for dementia and palliative care research: high-value applications and key considerations. J Palliat Med. 2018;21(2):130-142. doi:10.1089/jpm.2017.0309
Yorganci E, Sampson EL, Gillam J, et al. Quality indicators for dementia and older people nearing the end of life: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(12):3650-3660. doi:10.1111/jgs.17387
Nicholls SG, Carroll K, Hey SP, et al. A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:45-57. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.021
Gaugler J, Jutkowitz E, Gitlin L. Non-pharmacological interventions for persons living with Alzheimer's disease: decadal review and recommendations. Commissioned paper for the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine NIA Decadal Study 2020.
Fazio S, Pace D, Maslow K, Zimmerman S, Kallmyer B. Alzheimer's Association dementia care practice recommendations. Gerontologist. 2018;58(Suppl_1):S1-s9. doi:10.1093/geront/gnx182
Baier RR, Mitchell SL, Jutkowitz E, Mor V. Identifying and supporting nonpharmacological dementia interventions ready for pragmatic trials: results from an expert workshop. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19(7):560-562. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2018.02.011
Stanick CF, Halko HM, Nolen EA, et al. Pragmatic measures for implementation research: development of the psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS). Transl Behav Med. 2019;11:11-20. doi:10.1093/tbm/ibz164
Lewis CC, Mettert KD, Stanick CF, et al. The psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS) for measure development and evaluation. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:26334895211037391. doi:10.1177/26334895211037391
Mitchell SLMV, Harrison J, McCarthy EP. Embedded pragmatic trials in dementia care: realizing the vision of the NIA IMPACT Collaboratory. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(Supp 2):S1-S7.
Gabbard JL, Carpenter JG, Ernecoff NC, et al. Evaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: a scoping review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023:1-14. doi:10.1111/jgs.18495
Vanderhout S, Fergusson DA, Cook JA, Taljaard M. Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med. 2022;19(2):e1003896. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003896
Uyeda AM, Lee RY, Pollack LR, et al. Predictors of documented goals-of-care discussion for hospitalized patients with chronic illness. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2023;65(3):233-241. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.11.012
Ouellet GM, Kiwak E, Costello DM, et al. Clinician perspectives on incorporating Patients' values-based health priorities in decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(1):267-269. doi:10.1111/jgs.16914
Hanson LC, Zimmerman S, Song MK, et al. Effect of the goals of care intervention for advanced dementia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(1):24-31. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7031