Quayhagen 2000.

Methods	An RCT comparing 4 treatment conditions (cognitive stimulation, dyadic counselling, dual supportive seminar, and early‐stage daycare) and a wait‐list control condition in people with dementia and their caregivers (spouses)
Participants	103 participant dyads (caregiver and dementia‐diagnosed spouse) were recruited for the study. Participants (65 men/38 women, mean age 74.5, mean education level 14.5 years) had to receive a diagnosis of possible or probable AD, cardiovascular dementia, or Parkinson's dementia, all at mild to moderate stages
Interventions	Participants in the cognitive stimulation condition (n = 21) completed a home‐based remediation programme in which the caregiver was the intervening agent who helped to cognitively stimulate the person with dementia Participants in the dyadic counselling condition (n = 29) also completed a home‐based intervention involving take‐home tasks used to enhance the interaction and to improve learning of problem‐solving skills. The intervention had an affective orientation Participants in the dual supportive seminar intervention condition (n = 22) participated in meetings that aimed to enhance communication between persons with dementia and their caregivers Participants in the early‐stage daycare programme condition (n = 16) took part in group‐based activities. Persons with dementia met for 4 hours per week and engaged in structured activities that aimed to enhance their remaining strengths and abilities. Caregivers met once a month in a support group Each of the interventions was delivered over 8 weeks. The first 3 interventions were delivered over a total of 1.5 hours per week, whereas the early‐stage daycare programme was delivered for a total of 4 weekly hours for patients, and in 2 sessions for caregivers Trained graduate students and licensed clinical personnel from psychology, social work, and nursing delivered the interventions and assessments Participants in the wait‐list control condition (n = 15) received no treatment but were instead randomised to 1 of the 4 treatment conditions at the end of the study
Outcomes	Both patient and caregiver outcomes were measured. Patient outcomes included immediate and delayed memory, verbal fluency, problem‐solving, and behavioural symptoms. Caregiver outcomes included marital satisfaction, emotional status, morale, physical health status, stress, coping, and social support
Country	United States of America
Registration status	No information provided; presumed to be unregistered
Conflict of Interests	Not stated
Notes	Although study authors reported in the article that treatment groups did not differ in terms of age, education, or racial distribution, they did not provide demographic data at the group level
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Although study authors described an RCT, they provided no information on the method of randomisation
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Study authors did not mention allocation concealment; for this reason, we assumed this was not done
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Study authors did not mention blinding of participants; the study included a passive control condition, so blinding was not possible
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"The assessment team was blinded to the condition to which the unit was randomised"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Study authors provided no information on whether all randomised dyads had completed the post‐treatment evaluation
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All tests mentioned in the "Methods" section were reported in the "Results" section
Other bias	Low risk	Study appears to be free of other sources of bias