CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03506672Updated Apr 25, 2025

Assessing the Effectiveness of an Approach for Vocal Behaviors in Older People Living in Nursing Homes

An interventional study of Approach based on the meanings of vocal behaviours and Usual practices in Behavioral Symptoms, sponsored by Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal. Completed at 7 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-04-25.

Sponsored by Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
157
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Between 13 and 60% of older people who live with Alzheimer's disease (ADRD) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) manifest vocal behaviours (VB) that may seem inappropriate, e.g. moaning, screaming, calling out. These behaviours may indicate ill-being, disturb others, create feelings of powerlessness in family and formal caregivers, and lead to inappropriate medication. Previous efforts to reduce VB have been largely ineffective. A new approach was developed based on finding the underlying reasons for VB through a partnership between family and formal caregivers. The goals are to reduce VB, enhance older people's well-being, and increase family and formal caregivers' empowerment. The approach was tested in a pilot study of 14 triads comprising an older person living with ADRD, a family caregiver and a formal caregiver. The results were promising; overall, it is feasible to implement the approach in LTCF and it has positive effects on older people, family and formal caregivers. Now the investigators propose to assess the clinical and economic impact of the approach in 20 LTCFs with 108 triads like those in the pilot study. The approach will be implemented in 10 randomly selected "experimental" LTCFs; the other 10 (control group) will continue with their usual practices. The investigators will measure VB frequency and the well-being of the older people before, two and four months after starting the implementation. They will also measure the perceived disruptiveness of VB for family and formal caregivers, their ability to work in partnership and their empowerment relative to VB. The investigators will compare data between the control and experimental LTCFs, and calculate cost-effectiveness based on changes in VB frequency. The proposed three-year project aims to improve the well-being of all involved in LTCF by promoting a better understanding of VB and implementing a solution to optimize care. The investigators believe the findings will provide evidence to justify the wider implementation of the approach in LTCF.

Read the detailed description

Aim: To assess the clinical and economic effectiveness of an approach based on the meanings of vocal behaviours (VB) in older people living with Alzheimer's disease or related disorders (ADRD) in long-term care facilities (LTCF) using a pragmatic randomized trial complemented by a qualitative component. Background: Vocal behaviours are common in LTCF; 13 to 60% of residents exhibit them. They may indicate ill-being, are associated with overmedication, are disruptive for others, and induce powerlessness in family and formal caregivers. Studies on interventions to reduce VB have shown limited clinical impacts. In previous projects, the investigators developed and pilot tested a novel approach based on the underlying meanings of VB. The systematic approach comprises family-formal caregivers' partnerships which include regular meetings (at least monthly) to identify the meanings behind VB (e.g. pain, anxiety) and to apply personalized interventions (e.g. gardening, humor). A pilot study conducted in five LTCF demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment and data collection methods, as well as the approach implementation using 14 triads, each made up of an older person with ADRD, a family caregiver and a formal caregiver. The approach decreased the frequency of VB, and increased the well-being of the older people with ADRD. The formal and family caregivers perceived the VB as less disruptive, and felt more empowered relative to them. However, the lack of control group precluded measuring effectiveness versus usual practices and costs. Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the approach based on the results from the pilot study. A concomitant qualitative component will describe process elements that contribute to the measured effects. The investigators will randomize 20 LTCF to either an experimental (approach) or control group (usual practices), and recruit 6 triads in each LTCF for a total of 108 triads (power of 80%, significance 5%, medium effect size and 40% attrition). They will enroll 10 to 20 triads in the qualitative component. They will collect data, before, two (post-implementation) and four months (follow-up) after starting the implementation of the approach, on VB frequency (primary outcome), medication use, well-being of the older people, perceived disruptiveness of the VB, the partnership-based decision-making and the level of empowerment felt by family and formal caregivers. Additionally, they will collect data on the setting (e.g. number of beds, turnover rate), and cost (e.g. trainer, medication). Qualitative data will also be collected with individual semi-structured interviews. The investigators will analyze the effects of the approach using a mixed-model of covariance with baseline measures, and characteristics of participants and settings as covariates. They will also calculate a cost-effectiveness ratio, and do a content analysis of qualitative data. Expected outcomes: This project will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a novel and generalizable approach to increase the well-being of vulnerable older people, as well as family and formal caregivers. If effective, it may be implemented on a larger scale and adapted to other behaviours (e.g. aggressive behaviours), all of which is aligned with recommendations for research in dementia care.

02

Conditions studied

  • Behavioral Symptoms

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia
  • Psychosocial interventions
  • Well-being
  • Long-term care facilities
  • Family and formal caregivers
  • Partnership
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Older people: being 65 years old or more, having a diagnostic of Alzheimer's disease or related disorders, manifesting vocal behaviours daily and having contact with a family caregiver.
  • Family caregivers: being a person that has an emotional and social relation with the older person, visiting her/him at least twice a month, speaking English or French.
  • Formal caregivers: being a registered nurse (RN), licensed practical nurse (LPN), nurses' aide (NA) or another health professional involved at least three times per week in the care of the older person, speaking English or French.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Older people: having a life expectancy of less than three months
  • Family caregivers: N/A
  • Formal caregivers: having already participated in the trial for another older person.
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
157 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Experimental group

    Approach based on the meanings of vocal behaviours

    Other: Approach based on the meanings of vocal behaviours

  • Active comparator
    Control group

    Usual practices of formal caregivers regarding vocal behaviours

    Other: Usual practices

Interventions

  • OtherApproach based on the meanings of vocal behaviours

    Systematic problem-solving approach involving reflecting, deciding, planning and acting together (family and formal caregivers to reduce vocal behaviours and to increase everyone's well-being.

  • OtherUsual practices

    Usual practices of formal caregivers regarding vocal behaviours

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change from baseline frequency of vocal behaviors

    Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI); 29 behaviours on a 7-point Likert scale. Subscale "verbally agitated behaviours" of 6 items; A high score indicates a high frequency; For subscale "verbally agitated behaviours": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 2 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change from baseline frequency of vocal behaviors to follow-up

    Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI); 29 behaviours on a 7-point Likert scale. Subscale "verbally agitated behaviours" of 6 items; A high score indicates a high frequency; For subscale "verbally agitated behaviours": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  2. Change from baseline in well-being

    Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID); 11 emotional states and activities on a 5-point scale; A low score indicates a better well-being; Average score Min = 11 and Max = 55

    Time frame: 2 months

  3. Change from baseline in well-being

    Quality of Life in Late-Stage Dementia (QUALID); 11 emotional states and activities on a 5-point scale; A low score indicates a better well-being; Average score Min = 11 and Max = 55

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  4. Change from baseline in medication use

    Medical chart

    Time frame: 2 months

  5. Change from baseline in medication use

    Medical chart

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  6. Change from baseline in perceived disruptiveness of vocal behaviors-formal caregivers

    Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI); 29 behaviours on a 5-point disruptiveness scale. Subscale "verbally agitated behaviours" of 6 items; A high score indicates a significant disruptiveness; For subscale "verbally agitated behaviours": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 6

    Time frame: 2 months

  7. Change from baseline in perceived disruptiveness of vocal behaviors-formal caregivers

    Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI); 29 behaviours on a 5-point disruptiveness scale. Subscale "verbally agitated behaviours" of 6 items; A high score indicates a significant disruptiveness; For subscale "verbally agitated behaviours": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 6

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  8. Change from baseline in perceived disruptiveness of vocal behaviors-family caregivers

    Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI); 29 behaviours on a 5-point disruptiveness scale. Subscale "verbally agitated behaviours" of 6 items; A high score indicates a significant disruptiveness; For subscale "verbally agitated behaviours": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 6

    Time frame: 2 months

  9. Change from baseline in perceived disruptiveness of vocal behaviors-family caregivers

    Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI); 29 behaviours on a 5-point disruptiveness scale. Subscale "verbally agitated behaviours" of 6 items; A high score indicates a significant disruptiveness; For subscale "verbally agitated behaviours": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 6

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  10. Change from baseline in partnership-based decision-making-family caregivers' perspective

    Family Perception of Caregiving Role (FPCR); 43 items on a 7-point Likert scale with three subscales. The sub-dimension "characteristics of the role" will be used (23 items); The lower the score, the higher is the partnership; For subscale "characteristics of the role": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 2 months

  11. Change from baseline in partnership-based decision-making-family caregivers' perspective

    Family Perception of Caregiving Role (FPCR); 43 items on a 7-point Likert scale with three subscales. The sub-dimension "characteristics of the role" will be used (23 items); The lower the score, the higher is the partnership; For subscale "characteristics of the role": Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  12. Change from baseline in partnership-based decision-making-formal caregivers' perspective

    Staff Perception of Caregiving Role (SPCR) questionnaire; 58 items measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Two subscales, "consequence of interactions" (32 items) and "partnership with the family" (26 items); Each one has a separate score; The lower the score, the higher is the partnership; For each subscale: Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 2 months

  13. Change from baseline in partnership-based decision-making-formal caregivers' perspective

    Staff Perception of Caregiving Role (SPCR) questionnaire; 58 items measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Two subscales, "consequence of interactions" (32 items) and "partnership with the family" (26 items); Each one has a separate score; The lower the score, the higher is the partnership; For each subscale: Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  14. Change from baseline in partnership-based decision-making-formal caregivers' attitudes

    Attitudes about Families Checklist (AFC); 16 items measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Three subscales "quieting/disquieting" (5 items), "partner-subordinate" (4 items) and "relevant-irrelevant" (7 items); Each one has a separate score; The higher the score, the more positive is the attitude; For each subscale: Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 2 months

  15. Change from baseline in partnership-based decision-making-formal caregivers' attitude

    Attitudes about Families Checklist (AFC); 16 items measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Three subscales "quieting/disquieting" (5 items), "partner-subordinate" (4 items) and "relevant-irrelevant" (7 items); Each one has a separate score; The higher the score, the more positive is the attitude; For each subscale: Average score Min = 1 and Max = 7

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  16. Change from baseline in empowerment-formal caregivers

    Unique question ("When the older person manifests vocal behaviours, I feel I can do something for her/him"); 100-mm visual analogue scale ranging from Min = 0 (I feel that I cannot do anything for her/him) to Max = 100 (I feel I can always do something for her/him); The higher the score, the higher is the empowerment.

    Time frame: 2 months

  17. Change from baseline in empowerment-formal caregivers

    Unique question ("When the older person manifests vocal behaviours, I feel I can do something for her/him"); 100-mm visual analogue scale ranging from Min = 0 (I feel that I cannot do anything for her/him) to Max = 100 (I feel I can always do something for her/him); The higher the score, the higher is the empowerment.

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  18. Change from baseline in empowerment-family caregivers

    Unique question ("When my relative manifests vocal behaviours, I feel I can do something for her/him"); 100-mm visual analogue scale ranging from Min = 0 (I feel that I cannot do anything for her/him) to Max = 100 (I feel I can always do something for her/him); The higher the score, the higher is the empowerment.

    Time frame: 2 months

  19. Change from baseline in empowerment-family caregivers

    Unique question ("When my relative manifests vocal behaviours, I feel I can do something for her/him"); 100-mm visual analogue scale ranging from Min = 0 (I feel that I cannot do anything for her/him) to Max = 100 (I feel I can always do something for her/him); The higher the score, the higher is the empowerment.

    Time frame: 4 months (follow-up)

  20. Cost

    Management data

    Time frame: 2 months

06

Study locations

7 sites
  • CHSLD Laval et Riviera
    Laval, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada
  • CIUSSS Nord-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
    Montréal, Quebec H2V 4T4, Canada
  • Residence Angelica
    Montréal, Quebec H2V 4T4, Canada
  • CIUSSS Ouest-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
    Montréal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada
  • Résidence Berthiaume-du-Tremblay
    Montréal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada
  • Vigi Santé
    Montréal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada
  • CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
    Montréal, Quebec, Canada
07

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03506672
Lead sponsor
Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal
Responsible party
Anne Bourbonnais (Research - Chairholder, Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal) — Principal investigator
First posted
Apr 24, 2018
Start date
Nov 30, 2018
Primary completion
Apr 17, 2025
Completion
Apr 17, 2025
Last update
Apr 25, 2025

Study contacts

Anne Bourbonnais
principal investigator · Centre de Recherche de l'Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion