Evaluating the capabilities model of dementia care: a nonrandomized controlled trial exploring resident quality of life and care staff attitudes and experiences

The article evaluates the effectiveness of capability of model of dementia care (CMDC) in facilitating the long-term care staffs to improve quality of life of older people with dementia and the staff behaviour. The study has used non-randomized control trial which is appropriate for addressing the research objectives such as evaluation of a treatment process. Result has indicated less work satisfaction and lower level of quality of life in case of control group as compare to the CMDC intervention group.

PRISMA 2009 Checklist
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported
on page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. Check
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria,
participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and
implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Check
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Check
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons,
outcomes, and study design (PICOS). Check
METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide
registration information including registration number. NA
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered,
language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. Check
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify
additional studies) in the search and date last searched. NA
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be
repeated. NA
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable,
included in the meta-analysis). Check
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes
for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. Check
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and
simplifications made. NA
Risk of bias in individual
studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was
done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. NA
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). NA
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency
(e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis. NA
Page 1 of 2

PRISMA 2009 Checklist
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported
on page #
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective
reporting within studies). NA
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating
which were pre-specified. NA
RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at
each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. NA
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and
provide the citations. NA
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). NA
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each
intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Check
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. NA
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). NA
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). NA
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to
key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). Check
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of
identified research, reporting bias). Check
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. Check
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the
systematic review.
NA
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.
Page 2 of 2

PRISMA 2009 Checklist
Response
Include your critical response to the chosen article here. Your response should not exceed 300 words and be in APA format with any appropriate citations.
The assignment focuses to critically analyse a dementia article. The selected article is Evaluating the capabilities model of dementia care: a non-
randomized controlled trial exploring resident quality of life and care staff attitudes and experiences by Moyle et al., 2016. The article’s title has clearly
reflected the purpose, which has helped me to assume about the content. The abstract of the study has provided precise description of the background,
objective, methods of collecting data and their interpretation, result and conclusion of the study that has helped to understand the overall concept of the
study. The researchers have provided information what is already known about dementia care in introduction and aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of
capability of model of dementia care (CMDC) in facilitating the long-term care staffs to improve quality of life of older people with dementia and the staff
behaviour. The study has used non-randomized control trial which is appropriate for addressing the research objectives such as evaluation of a treatment
process (Bowling, 2014). Data were collected and analysed in an effective manner to reduce the risk of biasness. Ethical consideration has been taken from
the Human Research Ethics Committee of Griffith University to avoid any ethical issue. Result has indicated less work satisfaction and lower level of
quality of life in case of control group as compare to the CMDC intervention group. The small sample size is not adequate for the study thus, there is less
chances of generalizing the result (Muralidharan, 2015). In addition, the study did not assessed the effectiveness of CMDC after 12 months that has
increase the risk of bias. However, the study has included adequate evidences to support the findings with appropriate interpretation of result. Due to such
strengths, I completely agree with the conclusion of the study which indicated that CMDC is an effective model to provide adequate care to the patient with
dementia and improve quality of life.

PRISMA 2009 Checklist
Reference:
Bowling, A. (2014). Research methods in health: investigating health and health services. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Moyle, W., Venturato, L., Cooke, M., Murfield, J., Griffiths, S., Hughes, J., & Wolf, N. (2016). Evaluating the capabilities model of dementia care:
a non-randomized controlled trial exploring resident quality of life and care staff attitudes and experiences. International
psychogeriatrics, 28(7), 1091-1100.
Muralidharan, K. (2015). Sample Size Determination. In Six Sigma for Organizational Excellence, pp. 81-97.