MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408745578 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf053

Process evaluation in a randomised controlled trial of DREAMS-START (dementia related manual for sleep; strategies for relatives) for sleep disturbance in people with dementia and their carers

2025· article· en· W4408745578 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah Amador, Gill Livingston, Mariam Adeleke, Julie Barber, Lucy Webster, Hang Yuan, Sube Banerjee, Ankita Bhojwani, Georgina Charlesworth, Christopher Clarke, Caroline Connell, Colin A. Espie, Ruochen Gan, Lina María González, Rossana Horsley, Rachael Hunter, Simon D. Kyle, Malvika Muralidhar, Liam Pikett, Malgorzata Raczek, Marija Taneska, Zuzana Walker, Zuyu Wang, Penny Rapaport

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSleep and related disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchEconomic and Social Research CouncilAlzheimer's AssociationNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNorges ForskningsrådUniversity College LondonFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsDementiaMedicineSleep (system call)Sleep disorderRandomized controlled trialGerontologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryInsomniaInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: DREAMS-START is a multicomponent intervention targeting sleep disturbance in people with dementia. To enhance understanding of the DREAMS-START randomised controlled trial, which showed improved sleep in the intervention compared to the control arm, we conducted a process evaluation exploring (i) DREAMS-START delivery, (ii) behaviour change mechanisms and (iii) contextual factors impacting outcomes. METHODS: Mixed-methods design. We measured intervention adherence, fidelity and additional therapeutic process measures. We interviewed a sub-sample of intervention arm family carers and facilitators delivering DREAMS-START. We analysed data thematically guided by a prespecified theory of change logic model informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. We measured movement using an actigraph worn by the person with dementia at baseline and at four- and eight-month follow-ups to explore potential mechanisms of action. RESULTS: Attendance was good (82.8% attended ≥4/6 sessions). Mean fidelity score (95.4%; SD 0.08) and median score for all four process measures assessed (5/5; IQR 5-5) were high. We interviewed 43/188 family carers and 9/49 DREAMS-START facilitators. We identified three overarching themes aligned with our model: (i) knowledge and facilitation enable behaviour change, (ii) increasing sleep pressure and developing skills to manage sleep disturbances and (iii) Establishing a routine and sense of control. We were unable to collect sufficient data for pre-specified actigraphy analyses. CONCLUSION: Despite competing demands, carers attended DREAMS-START. It promoted behaviour change through supportive in-session reflection, increasing carer knowledge and skills. This was embedded between sessions and actions were positively reinforced as carers experienced changes. Results will inform future implementation in clinical services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicSleep and related disordersFrench-language works237,207