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.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

50 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Pre-Post: The instrument is administered to the participants at 6 months

Results posted on

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

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

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 months

Population: 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

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 months

Population: 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

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 months

Population: 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

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 months

Population: 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

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 months

Population: 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

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

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

The MapHabit System + Caregiver Training Program - Care Recipient

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

The MapHabit System - Caregiver

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

The MapHabit System - Care Recipient

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 1 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Additional Information

Matt Golden

MapHabit, Inc.

Phone: 9143301776

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place