Objective

Valid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing QI-specific features of QI publications.

Methods

Approaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers.

Results

The QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was κ 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate.

Conclusions

We developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.

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.