Skip to content

Care of Persons With Dementia in Their Environments (COPE) in Programs of All-Inclusive Care of the Elderly (PACE)

A Training and Fidelity Model to Move and Scale Evidence-based Dementia Care and Caregiver Support Programs Into Practice: The Case for COPE in PACE Service Settings

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04165213
Enrollment
85
Registered
2019-11-15
Start date
2021-06-28
Completion date
2024-05-31
Last updated
2025-06-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Alzheimer Disease, Dementia, Frontotemporal Dementia, Lewy Body Disease, Mixed Dementia, Multi-Infarct Dementia, Neurocognitive Disorders, Pick Disease, Vascular Dementia

Brief summary

The protocol is organized into three Phases - In Phase I an online training program will be developed in Care of Persons with Dementia in their Environments (COPE) -an evidence-based bio-behavioral dementia program -using state-of-the science simulation and best online learning practices. In addition an automated approach to fidelity monitoring using computational linguistics (automatic classification programs) will be developed. In Phase II, ten long term care community-based (PACE) organizations will be randomized into two groups; 5 PACE organizations will serve as the control site in which staff training will be provided via the traditional high intensity face-to-face training in the COPE program. 5 PACE organizations will serve as the comparison and staff will be trained using the online COPE training program. Phase II will evaluate the whether an online training program is the same or better in improving PACE staff competency and fidelity to COPE principles and protocols compared to a high intensity face-to-face traditional form of training. In Phase III the efficacy of the COPE program on PACE participant outcomes by type of COPE training will be evaluated. Each of the PACE organizations will enroll 5 persons with dementia and their caregivers in the study. This will yield 50 family dyads (25 dyads in traditional training sites and 25 dyads in online training sites). Dyads will be followed for 4 months. Non-inferiority analysis will be used to assess whether dyads will yield the same or better outcomes regardless of how PACE staff were trained.

Detailed description

PHASE 1a - The Online Training Program - We will develop ten self-paced online learning modules. These modules will enable OTs and RNs to participant to have anytime/anywhere access to content and activities to aid their learning. The modules will include rich multimedia content and interactive assessments to keep the learner engaged. The modules will allow for easy packaging of the content into the latest interoperability standards for such content including the latest Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specifications, which will allow for repurposing and sharing with other institutions. To accommodate diversity of learning needs, the modules will be designed using a hyperlearning model with four dimensions. The general principles will begin with the module learning objectives and follow with a review of core concepts and required and/or self-directed learning activities. The mini-lecture component of the modules will include information on the major concepts of the module. Since the modules will be self-paced, the learner can take his/her time going through them and perform in the embedded interactive learning activities. The clinical reasoning dimension will provide the learner with an opportunity for problem-solving and clinical decision-making. This dimension will contain vignettes and case studies with questions requiring analysis and synthesis. The final dimension will be evaluation/ assessment of learning outcomes. This dimension will use teacher-made and standardized pre-and post-tests to assess attainment of specified learning outcomes. The self-paced modules will be highly interactive featuring integrated multimedia content, assessments, and learner evaluations to allow PACE staff to engage with the content at a high level and practice application in simulated scenarios. Each module will require approximately 45-60 minutes/module for the learner to complete. Participants can use the modules separately at different times throughout a training curriculum or they can be assigned at the beginning of a training time by having this information front-loaded. To develop the modules, we will work intensely in year 01 with an instructional design team at Drexel University with specialists in dementia care, the COPE program and experts in simulation, use of standardized patients, and training of nurses and other health professionals from Penn, Trinity Health and Jefferson. We anticipate the modules to contain the following content: module 1 - introduction to COPE program, research evidence, and core principles underlying the program; module 2 - overview of delivery characteristics, role of RN and OT, three phases (assessment, implementation, generalizability) of the COPE program, permissible adaptations; module 3 and 4-assessment phase, introduction to clinical interview and all assessments and forms; module 5 and 6- implementation phase including helping caregiver identify 3 problem areas, engaging in problem solving and brainstorming, developing and providing an assessment report and offering prescriptions (strategies) for each identified problem area; module 7 and 8 - generalizability phase or helping caregivers use strategies for one problem area to address another and planning for the future; module 9- developing rapport and working with family caregivers from different backgrounds, cultures, living environments and relationships and helping families balance caregiving with other life roles, adjusting approach by level of readiness; module 10 - challenging cases, motivational interviewing, how to explain the program, how to meet caregivers where they are at and provide validation and support. Scripts for each module will be developed and shared with OTs/RNs who are not part of the study but work within Trinity PACE programs. This will allow for continuous feedback loops to assure that the scenarios meet the needs of PACE staff. We will compare the online program to our traditional 3-day face-to-face training currently used with COPE. The 3-day training program will be conducted by Dr. Piersol using a slide deck and case presentations as we have previously done. The comparison of the two training programs is described in Phase 2 and 3 below. PHASE 1b -The Fidelity Monitoring Program- We seek to develop a scalable approach to assess fidelity to the COPE Program when it is implemented in a real-world setting such as PACE using computational linguistics techniques (e.g. natural language processing). The essence of fidelity to the Core Principles of COPE program will be captured by using automatic classification programs that evaluate both the content that should be included in COPE sessions, and the style of delivery. While automatic classification programs have been applied to measure quality metrics of transcribed narratives in the field of psychotherapy (21), it has not been used to measure other aspects of quality- namely fidelity to evidence-based practices or dementia care and caregiver supportive programs. The development of the automated Fidelity Monitoring Program will occur in three steps and will be carried out by a technical team consisting of an expert in content analysis, Dr. Ani Nenkova, and a consultant expert in speech recognition and prosody, Dr Mari Ostendorf. Co- I Nenkova has worked extensively on automatic summarization, evaluation of automatic summarization and readability and linguistic style. The ultimate goal of our efforts is to develop a system that- given a recording of a COPE delivery session (e.g. in real time immediately after interaction between the clinician and the caregiver)- produces a three-tiered score, indicating if the fidelity was 'excellent', 'acceptable' or 'problematic'. Special emphasis will be given to the accuracy of identifying 'problematic' COPE fidelity which is not fateful to training and may not produce the same desired outcomes as intervention delivered with higher fidelity. First, we will obtain n-best list speech recognition of the COPE interaction . This will help mitigate recognition errors in the next stage. Until recently, audio recording transcription was fraught with challenges particularly in sessions involving two or more speakers. Advances in audio signaling and speech recognition have brought technology for automating language analysis within reach. Recent research has suggested that text based features may be more effective than using audio features alone when classifying fidelity in behavioral research (47). Automatic speech recognition software will be used to transcribe sessions and the resulting words will be used in a text-based model of fidelity. All COPE training, practice and implementation sessions will be audio taped with participant consent. There are several of automatic speech recognition tools that we can use. We will pick the one that best balances accuracy of recognition in our domain and privacy.Once the transcripts are obtained, there are two approaches that we will develop and contrast: (1) comparison with a reference delivery and (2) a supervised classification approach. The first has the advantage of needing only a small number of excellent deliveries and several acceptable deliveries, for each of the seven dimensions, while the other needs a larger set of labeled data but would potentially lead to higher accuracy of prediction. Comparison or similarity to reference (Steps A and B): Our approach will leverage techniques widely used in the evaluation of automatically produced content, such as machine translation and automatic text summarization. In these applications it is not feasible to track system improvement with human judgments of quality. Instead, most of the progress is measured by computing similarity between a set of sample reference text (i.e. what a 'good' translation or a 'good' summary would be) and the system output. Such automatic evaluation approaches are widely used for machine translation (48) and summarization (49). While there have been some concerns that the automatic measures are not fine enough to distinguish between levels of very good context, these measures show strong ability to distinguish 'very bad' content (50,51), (or poor fidelity) aligns with the needs of our project. In Step A we will compile 10 examples of 'excellent' COPE fidelity deliveries, with the regions where desired aspects is expressed will be explicitly marked, i.e. marked parts where person-environment fit is discussed, or parts of the interaction where the clinician asks open ended questions or confirms the caregiver understanding of the content. Next, new interactions will be ranked by their similarity with the reference 'excellent' interactions (52). In Step 2 we will identify 'problematic' fidelity deliveries. We will make use of 10 negative examples of 'acceptable' but imperfect deliveries. If the new interaction ranks lower than most of these, it will be considered unacceptable or 'problematic'. Parameters and decision rules will be developed at this step to determine cut-off levels for declaring an interaction problematic. Determination of excellent versus problematic fidelity ratings of the audio recordings will be assessed by Drs Hirshman and Renz (who were not the original developers of COPE and thus they offer an independent review) using the COPE Adherence Scale developed for the original clinical trial in order to evaluate the extent to which core treatment principles were implemented effectively. Ratings from the Adherence Scale have been standardized such that 1.00 represents perfect fidelity and 0.00 represent complete non-fidelity. The scale was previously modeled off of the NIH REACH I and II fidelity approach. Findings from the combined fidelity ratings will be used to refine the automated fidelity program into a best model to be tested in Step C (53). Supervised classification (Step C) For this approach, we will need to examine all recorded sessions (600+). We will train a supervised classifier or a regression model to predict the score (1 to 3, corresponding to excellent, acceptable and problematic) of a given interaction. We will experiment with a number of classifiers, including deep learning frameworks and more traditional support vector machine and (logistic) regression models.The resulting final validation set of 100 labeled interactions will serve to finalize the best model for fidelity prediction. PHASE 2 - Evaluation of Online Training Program in Interventionist Uptake and Fidelity Phase 2 of this study involves a series of activities designed to evaluate the whether an online training program is the same or better in improving interventionist uptake of- and fidelity to- COPE principles and protocols compared to a high intensity face-to-face traditional form of training. PHASE 3 (Aim 3) - Efficacy of COPE on PACE participant outcomes by type of COPE training. This aim will be accomplished by evaluating dyad outcomes of the COPE program under the two different training approaches. Following training, each of the PACE organizations will enroll 5 persons with dementia and their caregivers in the study. This will yield 50 family dyads (25 dyads in traditional training sites and 25 dyads in online training sites). The recruitment plan includes the following goals: 25% recruitment complete by August 1, 2022 50% recruitment complete by October 31, 2022 75% recruitment complete by December 28, 2022 100% recruitment complete by February 28, 2023 Data analysis completed by April 28, 2023

Interventions

BEHAVIORALCare of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) online module training

An online module version of training for clinicians (OTs and RNs) in the evidence-based dementia caregiving program called Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) is the intervention being tested for non-inferiority against the usual instructor-led COPE training. COPE modules include rich multimedia content, simulated scenarios, interactive assessments to keep the learner engaged The content is packaged into the latest the latest Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specifications, which will allow for repurposing and sharing with other institutions. Each of the ten modules last 45-60 minutes.

Sponsors

Drexel University
CollaboratorOTHER
Thomas Jefferson University
CollaboratorOTHER
University of Pennsylvania
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to 100 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Our inclusion criteria are purposively broad to reflect the real world case mix of PACE staff, persons living with dementia and their caregivers using PACE programs. Inclusion Criteria: PACE organization staff will be eligible if they are Occupational Therapists (OTs) or Registered Nurses (RNs) employed full time for more than 1 year at the enrolled PACE site and in good standing . Persons with dementia will be eligible if they: a) are a Trinity PACE participant; b) have a diagnosis of dementia or = four errors on the Mental Status Questionnaire (MSQ, 39), which is updated for each PACE participant every 6 months; (The MSQ threshold of = 4 errors is considered moderate cognitive impairment); c) speaks or understands English. Caregivers are eligible to participate if they: a) have primary responsibility for care of the person with dementia (defined as being the responsible party who enrolled the participant in PACE and who provides hands-on or supervisory assistance with one or more instrumental or daily activities of living); b) speak English; c) have a telephone and are willing to participate in 3 telephone interviews (baseline, 4-and 9 month follow-ups); and d) are 21 years of age or older (male or female). While more than one family member may provide care to the person with dementia and participate in the COPE sessions, we will enroll the family member designated as the responsible party for the purpose of evaluating treatment effects.s in online training sites). At 4 months, study outcomes will be assessed.

Exclusion criteria

* Persons with dementia will be excluded if they are a) Diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder; b) bedbound and unresponsive; c) participating in a concurrent experimental drug study designed to treat agitation or aggressive behaviors. Dyads are not eligible if: a) they plan to move from the area within 9 months, b) either has been hospitalized \>3 times in past year; c) either is in active treatment for a terminal illness or are in hospice; and d) caregiver is involved in other support services/trials. These criteria are designed to minimize attrition and exclude caregivers of relatives at high mortality risk who may not benefit from the COPE Program. Dyads (PLWDS and CGs) will be excluded from the final sample if they do not complete at least 4 COPE sessions.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (Clinicians)Post-training baseline, 14 monthsThe Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) contains 93 items assessing 18 domains and is used to identify determinants of implementation behaviors in order to be able to develop effective strategies to improve healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors. Clinicians in this study were assessed for implementation behavior at post training baseline (prior to COPE implementation) and at follow up (post-implementation) for two DIBQ domains, knowledge and skills. These two domains have demonstrated good discriminant validity and are highly correlated in recent studies (https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-33). Participants answer each item with a response from 1 (strongly disagree agree) to 5 (strongly agree) with an option to refuse to respond (score of 0). Each domain has a minimum total score of 0 and maximum total score of 10. Higher scores are positive and indicate improved knowledge and skills in COPE.
Perceived Change for Better Index (Caregivers)Baseline, 4 monthsThe Perceived Change for Better Index is a 13-item scale that measures caregiver appraisals of self-improvement or decline in areas of well-being within a month of survey completion. Caregivers rate items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = became much worse, 2 = became somewhat worse, 3 = stayed the same, 4 = improved somewhat, 5 = improved a lot). Total scores at one time point range from 13-65. Higher scores indicate better outcomes.
Target Behaviors (Caregivers)Baseline, 4 monthsThis measure captures the top 3 dementia behaviors exhibited by the PLWD and chosen by the caregiver to work on in the COPE program. At baseline, the caregiver selects and ranks the top 3 behaviors (assessed via the Neuropsychiatric Inventory brief questionnaire) and/or activities (assessed via the Caregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function) and rates confidence levels (0 = not at all, 4 = extremely). Caregivers reassess confidence levels at the 4-month follow up. The means reported are the change scores from baseline to follow up. A positive value indicates greater confidence and a better outcome.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Short Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ) (Caregivers)Baseline, 4 monthsThe 7-item SSCQ assesses CG sense of capability and confidence in providing assistance to relatives. Respondents respond to statements about being a caregiver on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree not disagree, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree). Total scores at one time point range from 7-35. The SSCQ has demonstrated reliability (α=.76), content validity via expert consensus panel, and construct validity (r=.88).
Neuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)BaselinePresence of 12 neuropsychiatric symptoms related to dementia. Caregivers answer yes or no to behaviors exhibited by the PLWD in the month prior to enrollment.
Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS) (Caregivers)BaselineSelf-report measure of social engagement including family and friends via 12 items. Items assess how many people participant sees at different time periods (0 = none, 5 = nine of more) and how often participant has social interactions (0 = less than monthly, 5 = daily). Total scores range from 0 - 60.
Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QOL-AD) (PLWDs)Baseline, 4 monthsCaregivers complete this 13-item questionnaire as proxies to measure the quality of life of the person living with dementia (PLWD). Points are assigned to each item (poor = 1, fair = 2, good = 3, excellent = 4). The total score is the sum of all 13 items that generates summary scales for physical components (PCS) and for mental health components (MCS). Total scores range from 13-52.
Caregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)BaselineCaregivers report instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) and activities of daily living (ADLs) support for PLWDs and their upset and confidence in providing support. CG chooses up to 16 IADLs/ADLs for which they provide support for the PLWD. Then, the CG rates their own upset level 0 (not upset) to 10 (extremely upset) and confidence level from 0 (not confident at all) to 10 (extremely confident) for each IADL/ADL. Upset and confidence scores are sums of 16 items rated 0-10 on Likert scale. Higher numbers for upset are negative and higher numbers for confidence are positive.
Zarit Burden ScaleBaseline, 4 monthsThe Zarit Burden Scale (Short 12-items) measures caregiver burden via 12 items assessed via the caregiver as (0 = never, 5 = nearly always). Total scores range from 0 to 48 and indicate no to mild burden (0-10), mild to moderate burden (10-20) and high burden (\> 20).

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Once at least 10 PACE sites agreed to participate, each site was randomized to the control or intervention groups. Clinicians were enrolled and received the type of training that had already been assigned to their site. Intervention = online module training. Control = Instructor-led training. After training, clinicians and staff enrolled dyads (PLWDs & CGs) to receive COPE. Dyads are assigned to the study arm according to which training their clinician received.

Pre-assignment details

Prior to assignment, the study team worked with Trinity Health PACE to ensure at least 10 PACE sites would enroll in the study.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Instructor-trained COPE Clinicians
Clinicians from PACE sites randomized to this study arm (control) will receive instructor-led training in the evidence-based dementia care program called COPE. After clinician consent and enrollment, outcome measures will be collected prior to training (pre-training baseline), after training (post-training baseline), and after delivering COPE to dyads (4 months post-implementation). Dyads (caregivers and PLWDs) receiving COPE from Instructor-trained COPE clinicians are represented in the study arms Caregivers receiving COPE from instructor-trained COPE clinicians and PLWDs COPE from instructor-trained COPE clinicians. These participants are receiving the usual instructor-led training - not the experimental training.
12
COPE Module-trained Clinicians
Clinicians from PACE sites randomized to this study arm (intervention) will receive self-paced online module training in the evidence-based dementia care program called COPE. After clinician consent and enrollment, outcome measures will be collected prior to training (pre-training baseline), after training (post-training baseline), and after delivering COPE to dyads (4 months post-implementation). Dyads (caregivers and PLWDs) receiving COPE from module-trained COPE clinicians are represented in the study arms Caregivers receiving COPE from module-trained COPE clinicians and PLWDs COPE from module-trained COPE clinicians. Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) online module training: An online module version of training for clinicians (OTs and RNs) in the evidence-based dementia caregiving program called Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) is the intervention being tested for non-inferiority against the usual instructor-led COPE training. COPE modules include rich multimedia content, simulated scenarios, interactive assessments to keep the learner engaged The content is packaged into the latest the latest Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specifications, which will allow for repurposing and sharing with other institutions. Each of the ten modules last 45-60 minutes.
12
Caregivers Receiving COPE From Instructor-trained COPE Clinicians
Caregivers of eligible PLWDS enrolled at PACE sites randomized to the control arm will be recruited by instructor-trained COPE clinicians. After initial recruitment, the study team will carry out consent and screening procedures with caregivers and collect caregiver outcome data at baseline (before meeting with COPE clinicians) and follow-up (4 months post-implementation). Caregivers must complete a minimal dose of 4 sessions out of 10 to be included in follow-up measures. Outcomes will be reviewed for change from baseline to follow-up and compared to caregivers receiving COPE from module-trained COPE clinicians for non-inferiority. These participants are receiving COPE from clinicians trained in the instructor-led COPE training.
10
Caregivers Receiving COPE From Module-trained COPE Clinicians
Primary caregivers of eligible PLWDS enrolled at PACE sites randomized to the intervention arm will be recruited by module-trained COPE clinicians. After initial recruitment, the study team will carry out consent and screening procedures with caregivers and collect caregiver outcome data at baseline (before meeting with COPE clinicians) and follow-up (4 months post-implementation). Caregivers must complete a minimal dose of 4 sessions out of 10 to be included in follow-up measures. Outcomes will be reviewed for change from baseline to follow-up and compared to caregivers receiving COPE from instructor-trained COPE clinicians for non-inferiority. Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) online module training: An online module version of training for clinicians (OTs and RNs) in the evidence-based dementia caregiving program called Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) is the intervention being tested for non-inferiority against the usual instructor-led COPE training. COPE modules include rich multimedia content, simulated scenarios, interactive assessments to keep the learner engaged The content is packaged into the latest the latest Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specifications, which will allow for repurposing and sharing with other institutions. Each of the ten modules last 45-60 minutes.
12
PLWDs Receiving COPE From Instructor-trained COPE Clinicians
Eligible PLWDS enrolled at PACE sites randomized to the control arm will be screened for eligibility and initial interest by instructor-trained COPE clinicians before caregiver recruitment. PLWDs will only be enrolled if caregivers consent to participate. PLWD outcome data will be collected at baseline (before meeting with COPE clinicians) and follow-up (4 months post-implementation). A minimal dose of 4 sessions out of 10 sessions must be completed for PLWD to be included in follow-up measures. Outcomes will be reviewed for change from baseline to follow-up and compared to PLWDS receiving COPE from module-trained COPE clinicians for non-inferiority. These participants are receiving COPE from clinicians trained in the usual instructor-led COPE training.
10
PLWDs Receiving COPE From Module-trained COPE Clinicians
Eligible PLWDS enrolled at PACE sites randomized to the intervention arm will be screened for eligibility and initial interest by module-trained COPE clinicians before caregiver recruitment. PLWDs will only be enrolled if caregivers consent to participate. PLWD outcome data will be collected at baseline (before meeting with COPE clinicians) and follow-up (4 months post-implementation). A minimal dose of 4 sessions out of 10 sessions must be completed for PLWD to be included in follow-up measures. Outcomes will be reviewed for change from baseline to follow-up and compared to PLWDS receiving COPE from instructor-trained COPE clinicians for non-inferiority. Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) online module training: An online module version of training for clinicians (OTs and RNs) in the evidence-based dementia caregiving program called Care of Older Persons in their Environment (COPE) is the intervention being tested for non-inferiority against the usual instructor-led COPE training. COPE modules include rich multimedia content, simulated scenarios, interactive assessments to keep the learner engaged The content is packaged into the latest the latest Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) specifications, which will allow for repurposing and sharing with other institutions. Each of the ten modules last 45-60 minutes.
12
Total68

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Caregiver EnrollmentDid not receive minimal dose of COPE04
Caregiver EnrollmentLost to Follow-up11
Caregiver EnrollmentPhysician Decision10
Caregiver EnrollmentPLWD death20
Caregiver EnrollmentPLWD entered long term care, no longer eligible10
Caregiver EnrollmentWithdrawal by Subject05
Clinician EnrollmentDid not deliver COPE to dyads12
Clinician EnrollmentTermination from site01
Clinician EnrollmentWithdrawal by Subject60
PLWD EnrollmentDeath20
PLWD EnrollmentDid not receive minimal dose of COPE04
PLWD EnrollmentEntered long term care, no longer eligible10
PLWD EnrollmentLost to Follow-up11
PLWD EnrollmentPhysician Decision10
PLWD EnrollmentWithdrawal by Subject05

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicInstructor-trained COPE CliniciansCOPE Module-trained CliniciansCaregivers Receiving COPE From Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansCaregivers Receiving COPE From Module-trained COPE CliniciansTotalPLWDs Receiving COPE From Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansPLWDs Receiving COPE From Module-trained COPE Clinicians
Age, Continuous
Mean Age (Years)
44 years48 years56 years63 years53 years
Age, Customized
60-69 years
2 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Age, Customized
70-79 years
6 Participants4 Participants2 Participants
Age, Customized
80-88 years
11 Participants4 Participants7 Participants
Age, Customized
89 years and older
3 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants0 Participants2 Participants1 Participants6 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
12 Participants12 Participants8 Participants11 Participants61 Participants8 Participants10 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
2 Participants2 Participants2 Participants6 Participants21 Participants2 Participants7 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants2 Participants1 Participants6 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
10 Participants10 Participants5 Participants5 Participants40 Participants6 Participants4 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
11 Participants12 Participants10 Participants11 Participants57 Participants7 Participants6 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants11 Participants3 Participants6 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
EG004
affected / at risk
EG005
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 80 / 90 / 70 / 72 / 72 / 7
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 80 / 90 / 70 / 70 / 70 / 7
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 80 / 90 / 70 / 70 / 70 / 7

Outcome results

Primary

Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (Clinicians)

The Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (DIBQ) contains 93 items assessing 18 domains and is used to identify determinants of implementation behaviors in order to be able to develop effective strategies to improve healthcare professionals' implementation behaviors. Clinicians in this study were assessed for implementation behavior at post training baseline (prior to COPE implementation) and at follow up (post-implementation) for two DIBQ domains, knowledge and skills. These two domains have demonstrated good discriminant validity and are highly correlated in recent studies (https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-33). Participants answer each item with a response from 1 (strongly disagree agree) to 5 (strongly agree) with an option to refuse to respond (score of 0). Each domain has a minimum total score of 0 and maximum total score of 10. Higher scores are positive and indicate improved knowledge and skills in COPE.

Time frame: Post-training baseline, 14 months

Population: These outcome measures were collected from clinicians in the control and intervention study arms at post-training baseline (just after training) and follow-up (after implementing COPE to dyads). The means reported are change scores between those timepoints.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansDeterminants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (Clinicians)Domain 2 (skills) change score0.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.87
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansDeterminants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (Clinicians)Domain 1 (knowledge) change score0.06 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.53
COPE Module-trained CliniciansDeterminants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (Clinicians)Domain 1 (knowledge) change score-0.25 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.76
COPE Module-trained CliniciansDeterminants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire (Clinicians)Domain 2 (skills) change score0.06 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.78
Primary

Perceived Change for Better Index (Caregivers)

The Perceived Change for Better Index is a 13-item scale that measures caregiver appraisals of self-improvement or decline in areas of well-being within a month of survey completion. Caregivers rate items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = became much worse, 2 = became somewhat worse, 3 = stayed the same, 4 = improved somewhat, 5 = improved a lot). Total scores at one time point range from 13-65. Higher scores indicate better outcomes.

Time frame: Baseline, 4 months

Population: The means reported indicate the change from baseline to follow up. A positive value indicates an improved perception of well being and better outcome.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansPerceived Change for Better Index (Caregivers)9.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.65
COPE Module-trained CliniciansPerceived Change for Better Index (Caregivers)4.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
Primary

Target Behaviors (Caregivers)

This measure captures the top 3 dementia behaviors exhibited by the PLWD and chosen by the caregiver to work on in the COPE program. At baseline, the caregiver selects and ranks the top 3 behaviors (assessed via the Neuropsychiatric Inventory brief questionnaire) and/or activities (assessed via the Caregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function) and rates confidence levels (0 = not at all, 4 = extremely). Caregivers reassess confidence levels at the 4-month follow up. The means reported are the change scores from baseline to follow up. A positive value indicates greater confidence and a better outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, 4 months

Population: 1 caregiver in the control group refused to complete the assessment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansTarget Behaviors (Caregivers)PLWD behavior ranked #1 in upset level by Caregiver-0.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.82
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansTarget Behaviors (Caregivers)PLWD behavior ranked #2 in upset level by Caregiver0.67 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.63
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansTarget Behaviors (Caregivers)PLWD behavior ranked #3 in upset level by Caregiver0.60 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.52
COPE Module-trained CliniciansTarget Behaviors (Caregivers)PLWD behavior ranked #1 in upset level by Caregiver1.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.79
COPE Module-trained CliniciansTarget Behaviors (Caregivers)PLWD behavior ranked #2 in upset level by Caregiver1.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.29
COPE Module-trained CliniciansTarget Behaviors (Caregivers)PLWD behavior ranked #3 in upset level by Caregiver0.29 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.11
Secondary

Caregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)

Caregivers report instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) and activities of daily living (ADLs) support for PLWDs and their upset and confidence in providing support. CG chooses up to 16 IADLs/ADLs for which they provide support for the PLWD. Then, the CG rates their own upset level 0 (not upset) to 10 (extremely upset) and confidence level from 0 (not confident at all) to 10 (extremely confident) for each IADL/ADL. Upset and confidence scores are sums of 16 items rated 0-10 on Likert scale. Higher numbers for upset are negative and higher numbers for confidence are positive.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Caregivers report IADL and ADL support for PLWDs and their upset and confidence in providing support.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansCaregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)Level of CG confidence for ADL/IADLs support (sum across 16 items on Likert scale 0-10)77.50 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 32.17
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansCaregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)Report of ADL/IADLs8.00 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.37
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansCaregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)Level of CG upset for ADL/IADLs support (sum across 16 items on Likert scale 0-10)22.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.38
COPE Module-trained CliniciansCaregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)Report of ADL/IADLs10.57 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.88
COPE Module-trained CliniciansCaregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)Level of CG confidence for ADL/IADLs support (sum across 16 items on Likert scale 0-10)100.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 37.18
COPE Module-trained CliniciansCaregiver Assessment of Function and Upset Function (CAFU) (Caregivers)Level of CG upset for ADL/IADLs support (sum across 16 items on Likert scale 0-10)22.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.98
Secondary

Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS) (Caregivers)

Self-report measure of social engagement including family and friends via 12 items. Items assess how many people participant sees at different time periods (0 = none, 5 = nine of more) and how often participant has social interactions (0 = less than monthly, 5 = daily). Total scores range from 0 - 60.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: One caregiver in the control group refused to answer this baseline measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansLubben Social Network Scale (LSNS) (Caregivers)35.33 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.81
COPE Module-trained CliniciansLubben Social Network Scale (LSNS) (Caregivers)35.14 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.44
Secondary

Neuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)

Presence of 12 neuropsychiatric symptoms related to dementia. Caregivers answer yes or no to behaviors exhibited by the PLWD in the month prior to enrollment.

Time frame: Baseline

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Hallucinations2 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Apathy/Indifference4 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Depression3 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Disinhibition3 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Delusions3 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Irritability/Lability6 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Anxiety6 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Motor Disturbance3 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Agitation/Aggression5 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Elation/Europhia3 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Appetite Change4 Participants
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Nighttime behaviors5 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Appetite Change6 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Delusions4 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Hallucinations3 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Agitation/Aggression6 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Depression5 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Anxiety6 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Elation/Europhia0 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Apathy/Indifference6 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Disinhibition4 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Irritability/Lability6 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Motor Disturbance3 Participants
COPE Module-trained CliniciansNeuropsychiatric Inventory Brief Questionnaire (NPI-Q) (PLWDs)Nighttime behaviors7 Participants
Secondary

Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QOL-AD) (PLWDs)

Caregivers complete this 13-item questionnaire as proxies to measure the quality of life of the person living with dementia (PLWD). Points are assigned to each item (poor = 1, fair = 2, good = 3, excellent = 4). The total score is the sum of all 13 items that generates summary scales for physical components (PCS) and for mental health components (MCS). Total scores range from 13-52.

Time frame: Baseline, 4 months

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansQuality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QOL-AD) (PLWDs)-1.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.92
COPE Module-trained CliniciansQuality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease (QOL-AD) (PLWDs)-0.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.69
Secondary

Short Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ) (Caregivers)

The 7-item SSCQ assesses CG sense of capability and confidence in providing assistance to relatives. Respondents respond to statements about being a caregiver on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree not disagree, 4 = disagree, 5 = strongly disagree). Total scores at one time point range from 7-35. The SSCQ has demonstrated reliability (α=.76), content validity via expert consensus panel, and construct validity (r=.88).

Time frame: Baseline, 4 months

Population: Participant data is missing for 1 caregiver in the control group as this participant refused to complete this measure at baseline.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansShort Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ) (Caregivers)-0.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.19
COPE Module-trained CliniciansShort Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SSCQ) (Caregivers)2.43 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.99
Secondary

Zarit Burden Scale

The Zarit Burden Scale (Short 12-items) measures caregiver burden via 12 items assessed via the caregiver as (0 = never, 5 = nearly always). Total scores range from 0 to 48 and indicate no to mild burden (0-10), mild to moderate burden (10-20) and high burden (\> 20).

Time frame: Baseline, 4 months

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Instructor-trained COPE CliniciansZarit Burden Scale16.71 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.32
COPE Module-trained CliniciansZarit Burden Scale20.86 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.68

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 5, 2026