Trial Outcomes & Findings for Efficacy of Caregiver Training Program in Enhancing Caregiver and Patient Outcomes (NCT NCT05527405)
NCT ID: NCT05527405
Last Updated: 2026-06-10
Results Overview
The instrument consists of 22 items that evaluate the caregiver's perceived emotional, social, and physical burden. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Nearly Always). Total scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating greater caregiver burden. The total score is calculated by summing responses across all items.
COMPLETED
NA
50 participants
Pre-Post: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 months
2026-06-10
Participant Flow
Participants were enrolled as caregiver-care recipient dyads. Each dyad consisted of one caregiver and one person living with dementia. Dyads were enrolled and randomized as a single unit. A total of 50 dyads (participants) were enrolled and randomized. They were recruited through study flyers, dementia-related conferences, and dementia care organizations. Interested dyads contacted the study team and were screened for eligibility. Participation duration for each participant dyad was 6 months.
No significant events occurred between enrollment and assignment of participants to a group.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
The MapHabit System + Caregiver Training Program
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software, the MapHabit System (MHS), with an added Caregiver Training Program (CTP) into the caregiver's daily care for their individual with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to caregivers through compatible tablets. CTP will integrate a personalized caregiver education service into MHS, in which caregivers will engage in training sessions and related program materials with dementia support coaches, while the person living with dementia will interact with the software for ADLs.
|
The MapHabit System
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System (MHS), will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the system will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program. Caregivers will be interacting with the MHS with their person living with dementia.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
25
|
25
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
19
|
18
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
6
|
7
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
The MapHabit System + Caregiver Training Program
n=38 Participants
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software, the MapHabit System (MHS), with an added Caregiver Training Program (CTP) into the caregiver's daily care for their individual with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to caregivers through compatible tablets. CTP will integrate a personalized caregiver education service into MHS, in which participants will engage in training sessions and related program materials with dementia support coaches.
|
The MapHabit System
n=36 Participants
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System (MHS), will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the system will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program.
|
Total
n=74 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
Caregiver
|
62.58 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.84 • n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
67.94 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.51 • n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
65.19 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.96 • n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Age, Continuous
Care Recipient
|
79.53 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.07 • n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
78.28 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.37 • n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
78.92 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.66 • n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Caregiver · Female
|
18 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
15 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
33 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Caregiver · Male
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
3 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
4 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Care Recipient · Female
|
12 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
7 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
19 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Care Recipient · Male
|
7 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
11 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
18 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Asian
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
1 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Black or African American
|
7 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
4 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
11 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · White
|
11 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
14 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
25 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Asian
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
1 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Black or African American
|
7 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
4 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
11 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · White
|
11 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
14 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
25 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Hispanic or Latino
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
1 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Not Hispanic or Latino
|
18 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
18 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
36 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Caregiver · Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Hispanic or Latino
|
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
1 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Not Hispanic or Latino
|
18 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
18 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
36 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Care Recipient · Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
0 Participants
n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Zarit Burden Interview
|
37.68 Score of Scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.84 • n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
36.39 Score of Scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.94 • n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
37.05 Score of Scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.22 • n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL)
|
74.47 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 28.17 • n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
72.72 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 29.12 • n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
73.62 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 28.24628919 • n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Rapid Caregiver Well-Being Scale (R-CWBS)
|
21.89 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.20 • n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
19.83 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.20 • n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
20.89 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.79 • n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
|
Caregiver Confidence in Sign/Symptom Management (CCSM) scale
|
73.00 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 28.14 • n=19 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
83.94 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.49 • n=18 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
78.32 Scores on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 23.90 • n=37 Participants • For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-Post: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 monthsPopulation: For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
The instrument consists of 22 items that evaluate the caregiver's perceived emotional, social, and physical burden. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 4 (Nearly Always). Total scores range from 0 to 88, with higher scores indicating greater caregiver burden. The total score is calculated by summing responses across all items.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Caregiver Training Program
n=19 Participants
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software (named the MapHabit System) with an added Caregiver Training Program into the daily care of individuals with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to families through compatible tablets.
|
The MapHabit System
n=18 Participants
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System, will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the software will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Zarit Burden Interview at 6 Months
|
35.58 Score
Standard Deviation 11.24
|
36.06 Score
Standard Deviation 10.77
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 monthsPopulation: For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
The ADCS-ADL is a validated caregiver-reported measure of functional ability in individuals with dementia. The inventory assesses performance in basic and instrumental activities of daily living through a structured caregiver interview. Higher scores indicate greater functional independence and lower scores indicating greater impairment. The scale consists of 23 items administered via a structured interview with a caregiver or informant. Total scores are calculated by summing item responses, with possible scores ranging from 0 to 78.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Caregiver Training Program
n=19 Participants
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software (named the MapHabit System) with an added Caregiver Training Program into the daily care of individuals with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to families through compatible tablets.
|
The MapHabit System
n=18 Participants
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System, will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the software will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) at 6 Months
|
72.74 Score
Standard Deviation 27.73
|
72.22 Score
Standard Deviation 30.84
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 monthsPopulation: For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
18-item quality-of-life questionnaire (QoL-18) evaluated a range of participants' behaviors, including mood, engagement, and memory at the end of the study compared to baseline. The instrument is scored on a Likert Scale, ranging from 1-5. Final score is calculated as sum of all question scores. Minimum score of 18 and maximum score of 90. A higher number indicates better outcome compared to baseline.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Caregiver Training Program
n=19 Participants
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software (named the MapHabit System) with an added Caregiver Training Program into the daily care of individuals with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to families through compatible tablets.
|
The MapHabit System
n=18 Participants
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System, will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the software will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Quality of Life - 18 (QoL-18) at 6 Months
|
51.16 Score
Standard Deviation 8.96
|
52.00 Score
Standard Deviation 11.83
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 monthsPopulation: For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
The Rapid Caregiver Well-being Scale (R-CWBS) consists of 6 items. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale reflecting the caregiver's experiences and perceptions of well-being, with higher scores indicating greater caregiver well-being. Total scores are calculated by summing responses across all items, with higher scores reflecting better overall well-being and lower scores indicating greater caregiver strain or distress. Minimum score: 6 (all items scored 1) Maximum score: 30 (all items scored 5).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Caregiver Training Program
n=19 Participants
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software (named the MapHabit System) with an added Caregiver Training Program into the daily care of individuals with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to families through compatible tablets.
|
The MapHabit System
n=18 Participants
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System, will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the software will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Rapid Caregiver Well-Being Scale (R-CWBS) at 6 Months
|
22.47 score
Standard Deviation 4.65
|
22.61 score
Standard Deviation 3.40
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 monthsPopulation: For analysis of baseline and final outcomes, number of participants analyzed reflect participants who fully completed the study in order to adhere to the study's primary objective in assessing pre-post differences in outcomes. Differences in numbers between groups are explained by participant withdrawal, lost to follow ups, etc.
The Caregiver Confidence in Sign/Symptom Management (CCSM) scale is a caregiver-reported measure that assesses caregiver confidence in their ability to manage care recipient signs and symptoms. It consists of 25 items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all confident/true) to 5 (extremely confident/true). Total scores are calculated by summing responses across all items, with possible scores ranging from 25 to 125. Higher scores indicate greater caregiver confidence in managing signs and symptoms, whereas lower scores indicate lower confidence.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Caregiver Training Program
n=19 Participants
This condition will involve the implementation of an assistive technology software (named the MapHabit System) with an added Caregiver Training Program into the daily care of individuals with mild to moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The MapHabit System (MHS) is a commercially available visual mapping software application that utilizes visual, audio, and text media to create step-by-step visual guides to assist individuals and their caregivers in structuring and accomplishing activities of daily living (ADLs). The application will be made available to families through compatible tablets.
|
The MapHabit System
n=18 Participants
This control condition will act as the active comparator to the experimental condition. The same assistive technology, the MapHabit System, will be given to a separate group of participants. The difference here will be that the software will be a version that does not include the caregiver training program.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Caregiver Confidence in Sign/Symptom Management (CCSM) Scale at 6 Months
|
93.00 Score
Standard Deviation 15.83
|
101.47 Score
Standard Deviation 10.49
|
Adverse Events
The MapHabit System + Caregiver Training Program - Caregiver
The MapHabit System + Caregiver Training Program - Care Recipient
The MapHabit System - Caregiver
The MapHabit System - Care Recipient
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place