Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2021 Mar;25(19):1–156. doi: 10.3310/hta25190

Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT.

Rebecca Gathercole, Rosie Bradley, Emma Harper, Lucy Davies, Lynn Pank, Natalie Lam, Anna Davies, Emma Talbot, Emma Hooper, Rachel Winson, Bethany Scutt, Victoria Ordonez Montano, Samantha Nunn, Grace Lavelle, Matthew Lariviere, Shashivadan Hirani, Stefano Brini, Andrew Bateman, Peter Bentham, Alistair Burns, Barbara Dunk, Kirsty Forsyth, Chris Fox, Catherine Henderson, Martin Knapp, Iracema Leroi, Stanton Newman, John O'Brien, Fiona Poland, John Woolham, Richard Gray, Robert Howard
PMCID: PMC8020444  PMID: 33755548

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

SETTING

This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview.

RESULTS

Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group - control group difference: mean -£909, 95% confidence interval -£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group - control group difference: mean -£3545; 95% confidence interval -£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval -0.204 to -0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks.

LIMITATIONS

Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events.

CONCLUSIONS

A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants' health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants' EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire.

FUTURE WORK

Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Many people with dementia living at home are recommended assistive technology and telecare to help them remain living safely and independently in the community. These devices are meant to assist and support activities such as taking medication or cooking, or to raise an alert when there is an issue, such as a fire; however, there is currently little evidence to support such claims. This trial investigated whether or not assistive technology and telecare could delay people moving into residential care and keep them any safer than alternatives, and whether or not they were cost-effective. We recruited 495 people with dementia and their unpaid caregivers, who were randomly assigned to receive either a package of assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional or alternative support involving only basic assistive technology and telecare. We monitored the residential status, the use of health-care services and the health and well-being of participants with dementia and their caregivers over a 2-year period. Researchers also spent time with participants to see how they were living with the technology. The trial found no difference in the time that people with dementia with full assistive technology and telecare remained at home, nor any reduction in the number of safety incidents, compared with the participants who received basic assistive technology and telecare only. Full assistive technology and telecare did not increase health and social care costs. It did not improve the well-being of people with dementia or that of their caregivers. People with dementia who had full assistive technology and telecare rated their quality of life poorer than those with basic assistive technology and telecare did, but their caregivers rated their quality of life as about the same as caregivers of people with basic assistive technology and telecare. The technology sometimes averted crises but also disrupted people’s everyday lives. These results suggest that assistive technology and telecare for people with dementia provided in real-world conditions may not be as beneficial as previously claimed. The way that assistive technology and telecare services are organised bears further investigation to see how these services could be improved.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Leroi I, Woolham J, Gathercole R, Howard R, Dunk B, Fox C, et al. Does telecare prolong community living in dementia? A study protocol for a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Trials 2013;14:349. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Howard R, Gathercole R, Bradley R, Harper E, Davis L, Pank L, et al. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology and telecare for independent living in dementia: a randomised controlled trial. Age Ageing 2021:afaa284. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Knapp M, Prince M, Albanese E, Banerjee S, Dhanasiri S, Fernandez JL, et al. Dementia UK: The Full Report. A Report into the Prevalence and Economic Cost of Dementia in the UK Produced by King’s College London and the London School of Economics. London: Alzheimer’s Society; 2007.
  4. Lewis F, Karlsberg Schaffer S, Sussex J, O’Neill P, Cockcroft L. The Trajectory of Dementia in the UK – Making a Difference. London: Office of Health Economics; 2014.
  5. Wanless D, Forder J. Securing Good Care for Older People. Taking a Long-term View. London: The King’s Fund; 2006.
  6. Department of Health and Social Care. The Government’s Expenditure Plans. Departmental Report 2003. URL: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20030731053810/http://www.doh.gov.uk:80/dohreport/report2003/download.html (accessed 26 February 2020).
  7. Bebbington A, Darton R, Netten A. Care Homes for Older People: Volume 2. Admissions, Needs and Outcomes. The 1995/96 National Longitudinal Survey of Publicly-Funded Admissions. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2001.
  8. Department of Health and Social Care. Living Well with Dementia: A National Dementia Strategy. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2009.
  9. Woolham J, Frisby B, Quinn S, Moore A, Smart W. The Safe at Home Project. London: Hawker Publications; 2002.
  10. Woolham J, Frisby B. Using Technology in Dementia Care. In Benson S, editor. Dementia Topics for the Millennium and Beyond. London: Hawker Publications; 2002. pp. 91–4.
  11. Gitlin LN, Winter L, Dennis MP. Assistive devices caregivers use and find helpful to manage problem behaviors of dementia. Gerontechnology 2010;9:408–14. https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2010.09.03.006.00 doi: 10.4017/gt.2010.09.03.006.00. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Woolham J. Safe at Home: The Effectiveness of Assistive Technology in Supporting the Independence of People with Dementia: The Safe at Home Project. London: Hawker; 2006.
  13. Department of Health and Social Care. Building Telecare in England. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2005.
  14. Audit Commission. Assistive Technology: Independence and Well-being 4. London: Audit Commission; 2004.
  15. Miskelly FG. Assistive technology in elderly care. Age Ageing 2001;30:455–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/30.6.455 doi: 10.1093/ageing/30.6.455. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Lansley P, McCreadie C, Tinker A. Can adapting the homes of older people and providing assistive technology pay its way? Age and Ageing 2004;33:571–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afh190 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afh190. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Mitchell R. An Evaluation of Falkirk’s Mobile Community Alarms Service. Falkirk: Falkirk Council; 1996.
  18. Cash M. At Home with AT (Assistive Technology). An Evaluation of the Practical and Ethical Implications of Assistive Technology and Devices to Support People with Dementia and their Carers. Bristol: Dementia Voice; 2004.
  19. Doughty K, Williams G. Practical solutions for the integration of community alarms, assistive technologies and telecare. Qual Ageing Older Adults 2001;2:31–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/14717794200100006 doi: 10.1108/14717794200100006. [DOI]
  20. Bharucha AJ, Anand V, Forlizzi J, Dew MA, Reynolds CF, Stevens S, Wactlar H. Intelligent assistive technology applications to dementia care: current capabilities, limitations, and future challenges. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2009;17:88–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e318187dde5 doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e318187dde5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Barlow J. Building an Evidence Base for Successful Telecare Implementation. Updated Report of the Evidence Working Group of the Telecare Policy Collaborative Chaired by James Barlow. London: Care Services Improvement Partnership; 2006.
  22. Marshall M. ASTRID: A Social and Technological Response to Meeting the Needs of Individuals with Dementia and their Carers; A Guide to Using Technology Within Dementia Care. London: Hawker; 2000.
  23. Frisby B, Woolham J. Building a local infrastructure that supports the use of assistive technology in the care of people with dementia. Res Policy Plan 2002;20:11–24.
  24. Fisk MJ. Social Alarms to Telecare: Older People’s Services in Transition. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2003. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1t8951n doi: 10.2307/j.ctt1t8951n. [DOI]
  25. Woolham J, Gibson G, Clarke P. Assistive technology, telecare, and dementia: some implications of current policies and guidance. Res Policy Plan 2006;24:149–64.
  26. Department of Health and Social Care. Transforming Adult Social Care. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2009.
  27. Poole T. Wanless Social Care Review: Telecare and Older People. London: The King’s Fund; 2006.
  28. Girodano R, Clark M, Goodwin N. Perspectives on Telehealth and Telecare: Learning from the 12 Whole System Demonstrator Action Network (WSDAN) Sites. WSDAN Briefing Paper. London: The King’s Fund; 2010.
  29. Bower P, Cartwright M, Hirani SP, Barlow J, Hendy J, Knapp M, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of the impact of telemonitoring in patients with long-term conditions and social care needs: protocol for the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:184. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-184 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Cartwright M, Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, Doll H, Bower P, et al. Effect of telehealth on quality of life and psychological outcomes over 12 months (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested study of patient reported outcomes in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013;346:f653. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f653 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández JL, Beecham J, Hirani SP, Cartwright M, et al. Cost effectiveness of telehealth for patients with long term conditions (Whole Systems Demonstrator telehealth questionnaire study): nested economic evaluation in a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2013;346:f1035. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1035 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1035. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, Dixon J, Doll H, Hirani S, et al. Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2012;344:e3874. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3874 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3874. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Hirani SP, Beynon M, Cartwright M, Rixon L, Doll H, Henderson C, et al. The effect of telecare on the quality of life and psychological well-being of elderly recipients of social care over a 12-month period: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing 2014;43:334–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/aft185 doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft185. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, Dixon J, Doll H, Beynon M, et al. Effect of telecare on use of health and social care services: findings from the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing 2013;42:501–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/aft008 doi: 10.1093/ageing/aft008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  35. Henderson C, Knapp M, Fernández JL, Beecham J, Hirani SP, Beynon M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telecare for people with social care needs: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. Age Ageing 2014;43:794–800. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu067 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Brownsell S. Measuring the ‘success’ of telehealth interventions. J Assistive Technol 2009;3:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/17549450200900030 doi: 10.1108/17549450200900030. [DOI]
  37. Van der Roest HG, Wenborn J, Pastink C, Dröes RM, Orrell M. Assistive technology for memory support in dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;6:CD009627. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009627.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009627.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Knapp M, Barlow J, Comas-Herrera A, Damant J, Freddolino P, Hamblin K, et al. The Case for Investment in Technology to Manage the Global Costs of Dementia. London: Policy Innovation Research Unit; 2015.
  39. Department for Constitutional Affairs. Mental Capacity Act 2005: Code of Practice. London: The Stationery Office; 2007.
  40. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013;22:1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4 doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. NHS Improvement. Reference Cost Collection: National Schedule of Reference Costs, 2016–17 – NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts. London: NHS Improvement; 2017.
  43. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2017.
  44. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing Psychiatric Interventions. In Thornicroft G, Brewin C, Wing J, editors. Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2nd edn. London: Gaskell/Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2001. pp. 200–24.
  45. Leggett AN, Zarit S, Taylor A, Galvin JE. Stress and burden among caregivers of patients with Lewy body dementia. Gerontologist 2011;51:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq055 doi: 10.1093/geront/gnq055. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Hirani SP, Rixon L, Beynon M, Cartwright M, Cleanthous S, Selva A, et al. Quantifying beliefs regarding telehealth: development of the Whole Systems Demonstrator Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire. J Telemed Telecare 2017;23:460–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16649531 doi: 10.1177/1357633X16649531. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Fish J. Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale. In Kreutzer JS, DeLuca J, Caplan B, editors. Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 452–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1929 doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1929. [DOI]
  48. Courtney C, Farrell D, Gray R, Hills R, Lynch L, Sellwood E, et al. Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2004;363:2105–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16499-4 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16499-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. World Medical Assembly. Declaration of Helsinki (1964). Br Med J 1996;313:1448–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448a doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7070.1448a. [DOI]
  50. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use – Good Clinical Practice. Code of Federal Regulations & Guidelines Vol. 1. International Committee on Harmonization. Philadelphia, PA: Barnett International/PAREXEL; 1997.
  51. Forsyth K, Henderson C, Davis L, Singh Roy A, Dunk B, Curnow E, et al. Assessment of need and practice for assistive technology and telecare for people with dementia – The ATTILA (Assistive Technology and Telecare to maintain Independent Living At home for people with dementia) trial. Alzheimers Dement 2019;5:420–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2019.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.trci.2019.07.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  52. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655 doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice : A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2003.
  55. Ehrenhard M, Kijl B, Nieuwenhuis L. Market adoption barriers of multi-stakeholder technology: smart homes for the aging population. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2014;89:306–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.002. [DOI]
  56. Kijl B, Nieuwenhuis LJ, Huis in ‘t Veld RM, Hermens HJ, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM. Deployment of e-health services – a business model engineering strategy. J Telemed Telecare 2010;16:344–53. https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2010.006009 doi: 10.1258/jtt.2010.006009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  57. Parkinson SFK, Kielhofner G. User’s Manual for the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST). Chicago, IL: University of Illinois; 2002.
  58. Siegel S. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1956.
  59. Perneczky R, Wagenpfeil S, Komossa K, Grimmer T, Diehl J, Kurz A. Mapping scores onto stages: mini-mental state examination and clinical dementia rating. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;14:139–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JGP.0000192478.82189.a8 doi: 10.1097/01.JGP.0000192478.82189.a8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg 2018;126:1763–8. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set for England (Updated November 2018). URL: www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (accessed July 2019).
  64. HM Treasury. The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: HM Treasury; 2015.
  65. Wimo A, Reed CC, Dodel R, Belger M, Jones RW, Happich M, et al. The GERAS Study: a prospective observational study of costs and resource use in community dwellers with Alzheimer’s disease in three European countries – study design and baseline findings. J Alzheimers Dis 2013;36:385–99. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-122392 doi: 10.3233/JAD-122392. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Office for National Statistics. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings: 2017 Provisional Results. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2017.
  67. Koopmanschap MA, van Exel JN, van den Berg B, Brouwer WB. An overview of methods and applications to value informal care in economic evaluations of healthcare. PharmacoEconomics 2008;26:269–80. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826040-00001 doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826040-00001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Northern Housing Consortium. Consortium Procurement. URL: https://consortiumprocurement.org.uk (accessed October 2018).
  69. Billingham LJ, Abrams KR. Simultaneous analysis of quality of life and survival data. Stat Methods Med Res 2002;11:25–48. https://doi.org/10.1191/0962280202sm269ra doi: 10.1191/0962280202sm269ra. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Gray A. Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
  71. Bang H, Tsiatis AA. Estimating medical costs with censored data. Biometrika 2000;87:329–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/87.2.329 doi: 10.1093/biomet/87.2.329. [DOI]
  72. Basu A, Manning WG. Estimating lifetime or episode-of-illness costs under censoring. Health Econ 2010;19:1010–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1640 doi: 10.1002/hec.1640. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata. 3rd edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press; 2011.
  74. Allison PD. Handling Missing Data by Maximum Likelihood. Paper 312-2012. SAS Global Forum. Haverford, PA: Statistical Horizons; 2012.
  75. Hoch JS, Briggs AH, Willan AR. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 2002;11:415–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.678 doi: 10.1002/hec.678. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  77. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  78. Oremus M, Aguilar SC. A systematic review to assess the policy-making relevance of dementia cost-of-illness studies in the US and Canada. PharmacoEconomics 2011;29:141–56. https://doi.org/10.2165/11539450-000000000-00000 doi: 10.2165/11539450-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Glick H. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
  81. Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health 2011;14:390–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Aguirre E, Kang S, Hoare Z, Tudor Edwards R, Orrell M. How does the EQ-5D perform when measuring quality of life in dementia against two other dementia-specific outcome measures? Qual Life Res 2016;25:45–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1065-9 doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1065-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Alzheimer’s Research UK. Women and Dementia: A Marginalised Majority. URL: www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/about-us/our-influence/policy-work/reports/women-dementia/2015 (accessed May 2019).
  84. Trust C. Key Facts About Carers and the People They Care For. URL: https://carers.org/key-facts-about-carers-and-people-they-care (accessed June 2019).
  85. Brodaty H, Donkin M. Family caregivers of people with dementia. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 2009;11:217. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2009.11.2/hbrodaty. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. NHS Digital. Personal Social Services Survey of Adult Carers in England 2016–17. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/personal-social-services-survey-of-adult-carers/personal-social-services-survey-of-adult-carers-in-england-2016-17#resources (accessed June 2019).
  87. Allen AP, Curran EA, Duggan Á, Cryan JF, Chorcoráin AN, Dinan TG, et al. A systematic review of the psychobiological burden of informal caregiving for patients with dementia: Focus on cognitive and biological markers of chronic stress. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2017;73:123–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.006 doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. Carers UK. State of Caring 2018. URL: www.carersuk.org/for-professionals/policy/policy-library/state-of-caring-2018-2 (accessed June 2019).
  89. Mahoney R, Regan C, Katona C, Livingston G. Anxiety and depression in family caregivers of people with Alzheimer disease: the LASER-AD study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2005;13:795–801. https://doi.org/10.1097/00019442-200509000-00008 doi: 10.1097/00019442-200509000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Seeher K, Low LF, Reppermund S, Brodaty H. Predictors and outcomes for caregivers of people with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic literature review. Alzheimers Dement 2013;9:346–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2012.01.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2012.01.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  91. Chen ML. The growing costs and burden of family caregiving of older adults: a review of paid sick leave and family leave policies. Gerontologist 2016;56:391–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu093 doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu093. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Moore MJ, Zhu CW, Clipp EC. Informal costs of dementia care: estimates from the National Longitudinal Caregiver Study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2001;56:S219–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/56.4.s219 doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.4.s219. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Dassel KB, Carr DC. Does dementia caregiving accelerate frailty? Findings from the health and retirement study. Gerontologist 2016;56:444–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu078 doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu078. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Vitaliano PP, Zhang J, Scanlan JM. Is caregiving hazardous to one’s physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2003;129:946–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.946 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.946. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Alzheimer’s Association. 2017 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer Dement 2017;13:325–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2017.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.02.001. [DOI]
  96. Prince M, Knapp M, Guerchet M, McCrone P, Prina M, Comas-Hererra A, et al. Dementia UK: Update. 2nd edn. London: Alzheimer’s Society; 2014.
  97. Wimo A, Winblad B, Jönsson L. The worldwide societal costs of dementia: estimates for 2009. Alzheimers Dement 2010;6:98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2010.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2010.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Zarit SH, Todd PA, Zarit JM. Subjective burden of husbands and wives as caregivers: a longitudinal study. Gerontologist 1986;26:260–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/26.3.260 doi: 10.1093/geront/26.3.260. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Chiao CY, Wu HS, Hsiao CY. Caregiver burden for informal caregivers of patients with dementia: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev 2015;62:340–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12194 doi: 10.1111/inr.12194. [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Schofield H, Bloch S. Family Caregivers: Disability, Illness and Ageing. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin; 1998.
  101. Schofield H, Murphy B, Herrman HE, Bloch S, Singh BS. Carers of people aged over 50 with physical impairment, memory loss and dementia: a comparative study. Ageing Soc 1998;18:355–69. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X98006965 doi: 10.1017/S0144686X98006965. [DOI]
  102. Ashworth M, Baker AH. ‘Time and space’: carers’ views about respite care. Health Soc Care Community 2000;8:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00221.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00221.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  103. Brodaty H, Arasaratnam C. Meta-analysis of nonpharmacological interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia. Am J Psychiatry 2012;169:946–53. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11101529 doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.11101529. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Cooke DD, McNally L, Mulligan KT, Harrison MJ, Newman SP. Psychosocial interventions for caregivers of people with dementia: a systematic review. Aging Ment Health 2001;5:120–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/713650019 doi: 10.1080/713650019. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Gitlin LN, Marx K, Stanley IH, Hodgson N. Translating evidence-based dementia caregiving interventions into practice: state-of-the-science and next steps. Gerontologist 2015;55:210–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnu123 doi: 10.1093/geront/gnu123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  106. Lindberg B, Nilsson C, Zotterman D, Söderberg S, Skär L. Using information and communication technology in home care for communication between patients, family members, and healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Int J Telemed Appl 2013;2013:461829. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/461829 doi: 10.1155/2013/461829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  107. Schware R, Kenny C, Foster V, Wellenius B, Dokeniya A, Wheeler D, et al. Information and Communication Technologies: A World Bank Group Strategy. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications; 2002.
  108. Lucero RJ, Fehlberg EA, Patel AGM, Bjarnardottir RI, Williams R, Lee K, et al. The effects of information and communication technologies on informal caregivers of persons living with dementia: a systematic review. Alzheimers Dement 2019;5:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2018.11.003 doi: 10.1016/j.trci.2018.11.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  109. Davies A, Rixon L, Newman S. Systematic review of the effects of telecare provided for a person with social care needs on outcomes for their informal carers. Health Soc Care Community 2013;21:582–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12035 doi: 10.1111/hsc.12035. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Alwan M, Dalal S, Mack D, Kell SW, Turner B, Leachtenauer J, Felder R. Impact of monitoring technology in assisted living: outcome pilot. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2006;10:192–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/titb.2005.855552 doi: 10.1109/titb.2005.855552. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. Mellors S. Service User and Carer Views of Telecare in Derbyshire. Matlock: Derbyshire County Council; 2009.
  112. Holthe T. Enabling Technologies for People with Dementia: National Report on Results from Norway. 2004. URL: www.enableproject.org/download/Enable%20-%20National%20Report%20-%20Norway.pdf (accessed 26 February 2020).
  113. Woolham J. The Safe at Home Project: Using Technology to Help People with Dementia Remain Living in their Own Homes in Northampton. London: Hawker; 2005.
  114. Molloy DW, Alemayehu E, Roberts R. Reliability of a Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination compared with the traditional Mini-Mental State Examination. Am J Psychiatry 1991;148:102–5. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.148.1.102 doi: 10.1176/ajp.148.1.102. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist 1980;20:649–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/20.6.649 doi: 10.1093/geront/20.6.649. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol 1992;31:301–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  117. Little RJA, Rubin DB. The analysis of social science data with missing values. Soc Methods Res 1989;18:292–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189018002004 doi: 10.1177/0049124189018002004. [DOI]
  118. Rubin DB. The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation: comment: a noniterative sampling/importance resampling alternative to the data augmentation algorithm for creating a few imputations when fractions of missing information are modest: the SIR algorithm. J Am Stat Assoc 1987;82:543–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289460 doi: 10.2307/2289460. [DOI]
  119. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Stat Methods Med Res 1999;8:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800102 doi: 10.1177/096228029900800102. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Neubauer S, Holle R, Menn P, Grossfeld-Schmitz M, Graesel E. Measurement of informal care time in a study of patients with dementia. Int Psychogeriatr 2008;20:1160–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610208007564 doi: 10.1017/S1041610208007564. [DOI] [PubMed]
  121. Joling KJ, van Marwijk HW, Veldhuijzen AE, van der Horst HE, Scheltens P, Smit F, van Hout HP. The two-year incidence of depression and anxiety disorders in spousal caregivers of persons with dementia: who is at the greatest risk? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2015;23:293–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2014.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2014.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  122. Meshefedjian G, McCusker J, Bellavance F, Baumgarten M. Factors associated with symptoms of depression among informal caregivers of demented elders in the community. Gerontologist 1998;38:247–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/38.2.247 doi: 10.1093/geront/38.2.247. [DOI] [PubMed]
  123. Schoenmakers B, Buntinx F, Delepeleire J. Factors determining the impact of care-giving on caregivers of elderly patients with dementia. A systematic literature review. Maturitas 2010;66:191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2010.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  124. Jütten LH, Mark RE, Sitskoorn MM. Empathy in informal dementia caregivers and its relationship with depression, anxiety, and burden. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2019;19:12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2018.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2018.07.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  125. Blom MM, Zarit SH, Groot Zwaaftink RB, Cuijpers P, Pot AM. Effectiveness of an Internet intervention for family caregivers of people with dementia: results of a randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0116622. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116622 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Borsje P, Hems MA, Lucassen PL, Bor H, Koopmans RT, Pot AM. Psychological distress in informal caregivers of patients with dementia in primary care: course and determinants. Fam Pract 2016;33:374–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmw009 doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  127. Sörensen S, Pinquart M, Duberstein P. How effective are interventions with caregivers? An updated meta-analysis. Gerontologist 2002;42:356–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/42.3.356 doi: 10.1093/geront/42.3.356. [DOI] [PubMed]
  128. Parker D, Mills S, Abbey J. Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2008;6:137–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2008.00090.x doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2008.00090.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  129. Thompson CA, Spilsbury K, Hall J, Birks Y, Barnes C, Adamson J. Systematic review of information and support interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. BMC Geriatr 2007;7:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2318-7-18 doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-7-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  130. Vernooij-Dassen M, Draskovic I, McCleery J, Downs M. Cognitive reframing for carers of people with dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;11:CD005318. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005318.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005318.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  131. Lins S, Hayder-Beichel D, Rücker G, Motschall E, Antes G, Meyer G, Langer G. Efficacy and experiences of telephone counselling for informal carers of people with dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;9:CD009126. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009126.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009126.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  132. Olazarán J, Reisberg B, Clare L, Cruz I, Peña-Casanova J, Del Ser T, et al. Nonpharmacological therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review of efficacy. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2010;30:161–78. https://doi.org/10.1159/000316119 doi: 10.1159/000316119. [DOI] [PubMed]
  133. Kaizik C, Caga J, Camino J, O’Connor CM, McKinnon C, Oyebode JR, et al. Factors underpinning caregiver burden in frontotemporal dementia differ in spouses and their children. J Alzheimers Dis 2017;56:1109–17. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-160852 doi: 10.3233/JAD-160852. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  134. Alfakhri AS, Alshudukhi AW, Alqahtani AA, Alhumaid AM, Alhathlol OA, Almojali AI, et al. Depression among caregivers of patients with dementia. Inquiry 2018;55:46958017750432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0046958017750432 doi: 10.1177/0046958017750432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  135. Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Abingdon: Routledge; 2007. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203944769 doi: 10.4324/9780203944769. [DOI]
  136. Wenborn J, Hynes S, Moniz-Cook E, Mountain G, Poland F, King M, et al. Community occupational therapy for people with dementia and family carers (COTiD-UK) versus treatment as usual (Valuing Active Life in Dementia [VALID] programme): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-1150-y doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-1150-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  137. Lewis SJ, Russell AJ. Being embedded: a way forward for ethnographic research. Ethnography 2011;12:398–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138110393786 doi: 10.1177/1466138110393786. [DOI]
  138. Pink S, Morgan J. Short-term ethnography: intense routes to knowing. Symb Interact 2013;36:351–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.66 doi: 10.1002/symb.66. [DOI]
  139. Knoblauch H. Focused ethnography. Forum Qual Social Res 2005;6(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.3.20 doi: 10.17169/fqs-6.3.20. [DOI]
  140. Burawoy M. The extended case method. Soc Theory 1998;16:4–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00040 doi: 10.1111/0735-2751.00040. [DOI]
  141. Van Velsen J. The Extended-case Method and Situation Analysis. In Epstein AL, editor. The Craft of Social Anthropology. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1979. pp. 129–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023693-3.50011-9 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-023693-3.50011-9. [DOI]
  142. Guba EG. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educ Commun Technol J 1981;29:75–91.
  143. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.; 1994. pp. 105–17.
  144. Office for National Statistics. Towns and cities analysis, England and Wales, March 2016. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2016.
  145. Gibson G, Dickinson C, Brittain K, Robinson L. Personalisation, customisation and bricolage: how people with dementia and their families make assistive technology work for them. Ageing Soc 2019;39:2502–19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X18000661 doi: 10.1017/S0144686X18000661. [DOI]
  146. Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Procter R, Stones R. What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med 2013;93:86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.036 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.05.036. [DOI] [PubMed]
  147. Mort M, Roberts C, Pols J, Domenech M, Moser I, EFORTT investigators. Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: a framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expect 2015;18:438–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12109 doi: 10.1111/hex.12109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  148. Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, et al. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the Whole System Demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:220. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-220 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  149. Samus QM, Black BS, Bovenkamp D, Buckley M, Callahan C, Davis K, et al. Home is where the future is: the BrightFocus Foundation consensus panel on dementia care. Alzheimers Dement 2018;14:104–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2017.10.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.10.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  150. von Kutzleben M, Schmid W, Halek M, Holle B, Bartholomeyczik S. Community-dwelling persons with dementia: what do they need? What do they demand? What do they do? A systematic review on the subjective experiences of persons with dementia. Aging Ment Health 2012;16:378–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2011.614594 doi: 10.1080/13607863.2011.614594. [DOI] [PubMed]
  151. Department of Health and Social Care. Prime Minister’s Challenge on Dementia 2020: Implementation Plan. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2016.
  152. Aminzadeh F, Dalziel WB, Molnar FJ, Garcia LJ. Symbolic meaning of relocation to a residential care facility for persons with dementia. Aging Ment Health 2009;13:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607860802607314 doi: 10.1080/13607860802607314. [DOI] [PubMed]
  153. Tchalla AE, Lachal F, Cardinaud N, Saulnier I, Rialle V, Preux PM, Dantoine T. Preventing and managing indoor falls with home-based technologies in mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease patients: pilot study in a community dwelling. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders 2013;36:251–61. https://doi.org/10.1159/000351863 doi: 10.1159/000351863. [DOI] [PubMed]
  154. Brims L, Oliver K. Effectiveness of assistive technology in improving the safety of people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging and Mental Health 2019;23:942–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2018.1455805 doi: 10.1080/13607863.2018.1455805. [DOI] [PubMed]
  155. Alzheimer’s Disease International. Dementia Statistics. URL: www.alz.co.uk/research/statistics (accessed July 2019).
  156. Raina P, Santaguida P, Ismaila A, Patterson C, Cowan D, Levine M, et al. Effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for treating dementia: evidence review for a clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:379–97. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00009 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  157. Holthe T, Jentoft R, Arntzen C, Thorsen K. Benefits and burdens: family caregivers’ experiences of assistive technology (AT) in everyday life with persons with young-onset dementia (YOD). Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2018;13:754–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2017.1373151 doi: 10.1080/17483107.2017.1373151. [DOI] [PubMed]
  158. Nauha L, Keränen NS, Kangas M, Jämsä T, Reponen J. Assistive technologies at home for people with a memory disorder. Dementia 2018;17:909–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301216674816 doi: 10.1177/1471301216674816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  159. Liddle J, Smith SJ. Intelligent assistive technology for people living with dementia is a rapidly growing and changing area requiring clinical consideration. Aust Occup Ther J 2017;64:510–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12434 doi: 10.1111/1440-1630.12434. [DOI] [PubMed]
  160. Megges H, Freiesleben SD, Rösch C, Knoll N, Wessel L, Peters O. User experience and clinical effectiveness with two wearable global positioning system devices in home dementia care. Alzheimers Dement 2018;4:636–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trci.2018.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.trci.2018.10.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  161. Gibson G, Newton L, Pritchard G, Finch T, Brittain K, Robinson L. The provision of assistive technology products and services for people with dementia in the United Kingdom. Dementia 2016;15:681–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301214532643 doi: 10.1177/1471301214532643. [DOI] [PubMed]
  162. Momanyi K. Enhancing Quality in Social Care Through Economic Analysis. PhD thesis. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen; 2018.
  163. Allen C, Beecham J. Costing Services: Ideals and Reality. In Netten A, Beecham J, editors. Costing Community Care: Theory and Practice. Avebury: Ashgate; 1993.
  164. Beecham J. Unit Costs – Not Exactly Child’s Play. London: Department of Health and Social Care, Personal Social Services Research Unit and Dartington Social Care Research Unit; 2000.
  165. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2013. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2013.
  166. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2014. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2014.
  167. Banks L, Barnes, M. Evaluation of the East Sussex Carers’ Breaks Demonstrator Site. Brighton: University of Brighton, 2011.
  168. Federation of (Ophthalmic and Dispensing) Opticians (FODO). GOS Sight Test Fees. 2018. URL: www.fodo.com/resource-categories/nhs-sight-test-fees (accessed August 2019).
  169. Department of Health and Social Care. General Ophthalmic Services: NHS Sight Test Fee, Increases to NHS Optical Voucher Values, Payments for Continuing Education and Training and Pre-registration Supervisors Grant. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2016.
  170. Department of Health and Social Care. General Ophthalmic Services – Increases to NHS Sight Test Fee, Continuing Education and Training Payment and Pre-registration Supervisors Grant. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2015.
  171. Romeo R, Knapp M, Banerjee S, Morris J, Baldwin R, Tarrier N, et al. Treatment and prevention of depression after surgery for hip fracture in older people: cost-effectiveness analysis. J Affect Disord 2011;128:211–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2010.07.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2010.07.026. [DOI] [PubMed]
  172. Office for National Statistics (ONS). Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers’ housing costs (CPIH). 2019. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/l522/mm23 (accessed 10 May 2019).
  173. Iliffe S, Wilcock J, Drennan V, Goodman C, Griffin M, Knapp M, et al. Changing practice in dementia care in the community: developing and testing evidence-based interventions, from timely diagnosis to end of life (EVIDEM). Programme Grants Appl Res 2015;3(3). https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar03030 doi: 10.3310/pgfar03030. [DOI] [PubMed]
  174. NHS Digital. Prescription Cost Analysis England 2017. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2018.
  175. Automobile Association. Mileage Calculator. URL: www.theaa.com/driving/mileage-calculator.jsp (accessed 11 October 2018).

RESOURCES