Computerized Virtual Reality in Elderly

July 21, 2021 updated by: Taipei Medical University

Evaluation of Computerized Virtual Reality on FunctionalAbility and Quality of Life in Elderly

The number of dementia patients increased with aging population. People with subjective memory complaints or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may have a high risk of developing dementia. Cognitive /memory training programs have shown the potential positive effects for improving or maintaining the cognitive progression. However, the impact of those cognitive progressions on functional ability and quality of life is not well understood. In addition, it appears to have large variability responsiveness among trained subjects. Most studies did not examine the individual difference associated with training. The major aim will evaluate the cognitive training programs on functional ability and quality of life in older adults. The results will be expected to understand the effectiveness of the computerized virtual reality training, improving or maintaining cognition, physical and psychosocial function, enhancing quality of life, and reducing the risk of developing disability even conversion into dementia in later life.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Prevention strategies for dementia are needed because of the increasing prevalence of dementia. People with mild cognitive impairment are at high risk of developing a disability, even conversion into dementia in later life. Cognitive /memory training programs have shown the potential positive effects for improving or maintaining the cognitive progression. However, the impact of those cognitive progressions on functional ability and quality of life is not well understood. The major aim of this total project is to evaluate the short and long-term effects of computerized virtual reality training programs (Xavix Hot-Plus) on functional ability (cognition, physical and psychosocial function) and quality of life in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.

The experimental research design with three groups, one pretest and four posttests will be conducted to examine the short-term and long-term effects on cognition (primary outcome), physical (secondary outcome), psychosocial function (secondary outcome), and quality of life (secondary outcome). Independent adults will be recruited from the community base on sample criteria. The total subjects will be 160 to 190 older adults and the community care centers include all eligible participants will be randomly assigned into computerized virtual reality training programs group (Hot-Plus group) or social interaction group. The subjects for the control group will be recruited in the community and be referred by neurological, psychiatric, or gerontological physicians.

Participants who are in the Hot-Plus group will divide several small groups which will be 4 persons with mild cognitive impairment. Participants will receive a computerized virtual reality training program by Hot-Plus as a group activity one hour, once a week for 12 weeks. The participants in the social interaction group will come as a group for social interaction one hour weekly for 12 weeks. The control group will maintain their regular activities.

Data will be analysed by using SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL), with the significance level is set at p< .05. The normal distribution of the data will be evaluated using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Mean, Standard deviation, frequency, and percentage will be performed to describe all variables. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to evaluate differences between groups according to the continuous variables, non-normal distribution of data will be calculated by Kruskasl-Wallis test. The chi-square test will be used for the comparison of categorical variables, and Fisher's exact test will be used due to the expected value less than four. Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) will be used to examine the main effects, time effects, and interactions in outcomes over time.

The results will be expected to understand the effectiveness of the computerized virtual reality training, improving or maintaining cognition, physical, psychosocial function, enhancing quality of life, and reducing the risk of developing disability even conversion into dementia in later life.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

45

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • New Taipei City, Taiwan, 23561
        • TMU-Shuang-Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

60 years and older (ADULT, OLDER_ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Equal to or older than 60 years old
  • The SPMSQ scores range from 4-7 ( illiterate: 4-5, elementary: 5-6, junior high school: 6-7) or Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR): 0.5
  • Be able to communicate in Mandarin or Taiwanese
  • Has the ability to see and hear well enough to follow the instructions
  • Agree to participate in this study.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Activity restrictions from physician recommendation
  • Unstable disease progress could affect their participation
  • Surgery for joints or spinal cord within 6 months
  • Unable to walk 50 meters with the assistant device
  • Learning disability

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: PREVENTION
  • Allocation: RANDOMIZED
  • Interventional Model: PARALLEL
  • Masking: SINGLE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
EXPERIMENTAL: Computerized virtual reality training programs group (Hot-Plus group)
Participants who are in Hot-Plus group will divide several small groups which will be 4 persons with mild cognitive impairment. Participants will receive computerized virtual reality training program by Hot-Plus as a group activity for one hour, once a week for 12 weeks.
In this study, the investigators utilised interactive-video games called "Xavix Hot Plus"(Hot-plus, Shinsedai[SSD] Co. Ltd, Shiga Japan), which was designed specifically for rehabilitation and reported high participant motivation and enjoyment while playing.
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR: Social interaction group
The participants in the social interaction group will come as a group for social interaction one hour weekly for 12 weeks.
The social interaction group will get together as a group for social interaction one hour weekly for 12 weeks.
NO_INTERVENTION: Control group
The control group will maintain regular activities.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Cognition-Global cognition
Time Frame: At baseline.
Global cognition was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a modified version of a neuropsychological battery in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD), which maximum score was 30 including orientation, memory, concentration, language, and praxis (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Morris et al., 1989).
At baseline.
Cognition-Global cognition
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Global cognition was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a modified version of a neuropsychological battery in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD), which maximum score was 30 including orientation, memory, concentration, language, and praxis (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Morris et al., 1989).
Immediately after intervention.
Cognition-Global cognition
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Global cognition was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a modified version of a neuropsychological battery in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD), which maximum score was 30 including orientation, memory, concentration, language, and praxis (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Morris et al., 1989).
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-Global cognition
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Global cognition was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a modified version of a neuropsychological battery in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD), which maximum score was 30 including orientation, memory, concentration, language, and praxis (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Morris et al., 1989).
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-Global cognition
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Global cognition was measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a modified version of a neuropsychological battery in the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD), which maximum score was 30 including orientation, memory, concentration, language, and praxis (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975; Morris et al., 1989).
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-memory
Time Frame: At baseline.
Memory was measured by the Word List test, contained three types as following (Morris et al., 1989; Welsh et al., 1994): 1) Immediately recall; 2) Delayed recall; 3) Recognition.
At baseline.
Cognition-memory
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Memory was measured by the Word List test, contained three types as following (Morris et al., 1989; Welsh et al., 1994): 1) Immediately recall; 2) Delayed recall; 3) Recognition.
Immediately after intervention.
Cognition-memory
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Memory was measured by the Word List test, contained three types as following (Morris et al., 1989; Welsh et al., 1994): 1) Immediately recall; 2) Delayed recall; 3) Recognition.
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-memory
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Memory was measured by the Word List test, contained three types as following (Morris et al., 1989; Welsh et al., 1994): 1) Immediately recall; 2) Delayed recall; 3) Recognition.
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-memory
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Memory was measured by the Word List test, contained three types as following (Morris et al., 1989; Welsh et al., 1994): 1) Immediately recall; 2) Delayed recall; 3) Recognition.
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-attention
Time Frame: At baseline.
Attention was measured by the Digit Span (DS) subtest from the Taiwan version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Ⅲ (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2002), which contained two components: DS forward and DS backward.
At baseline.
Cognition-attention
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Attention was measured by the Digit Span (DS) subtest from the Taiwan version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Ⅲ (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2002), which contained two components: DS forward and DS backward.
Immediately after intervention.
Cognition-attention
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Attention was measured by the Digit Span (DS) subtest from the Taiwan version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Ⅲ (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2002), which contained two components: DS forward and DS backward.
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-attention
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Attention was measured by the Digit Span (DS) subtest from the Taiwan version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Ⅲ (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2002), which contained two components: DS forward and DS backward.
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-attention
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Attention was measured by the Digit Span (DS) subtest from the Taiwan version of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Ⅲ (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2002), which contained two components: DS forward and DS backward.
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-visual/spatial function
Time Frame: At baseline.
Visual/spatial function was measured by the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). Participants were asked to draw a clock face, place all the numbers on it, and set the time to 11 past 10 (Powlishta et al., 2002; Shulman, Shedletsky, & Silver, 1986).
At baseline.
Cognition-visual/spatial function
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Visual/spatial function was measured by the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). Participants were asked to draw a clock face, place all the numbers on it, and set the time to 11 past 10 (Powlishta et al., 2002; Shulman, Shedletsky, & Silver, 1986).
Immediately after intervention.
Cognition-visual/spatial function
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Visual/spatial function was measured by the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). Participants were asked to draw a clock face, place all the numbers on it, and set the time to 11 past 10 (Powlishta et al., 2002; Shulman, Shedletsky, & Silver, 1986).
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-visual/spatial function
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Visual/spatial function was measured by the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). Participants were asked to draw a clock face, place all the numbers on it, and set the time to 11 past 10 (Powlishta et al., 2002; Shulman, Shedletsky, & Silver, 1986).
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-visual/spatial function
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Visual/spatial function was measured by the Clock Drawing Test (CDT). Participants were asked to draw a clock face, place all the numbers on it, and set the time to 11 past 10 (Powlishta et al., 2002; Shulman, Shedletsky, & Silver, 1986).
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-executive function
Time Frame: At baseline.
Executive function was measured by the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)(Golden et al., 2002). It consisted of three subtasks: word reading (RED, GREEN, and BLUE), color naming (XXXX's colored in red, green, or blue ink), and incongruent color-word naming (the words RED, GREEN, and BLUE printed in not matching red, green, or blue ink).
At baseline.
Cognition-executive function
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Executive function was measured by the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)(Golden et al., 2002). It consisted of three subtasks: word reading (RED, GREEN, and BLUE), color naming (XXXX's colored in red, green, or blue ink), and incongruent color-word naming (the words RED, GREEN, and BLUE printed in not matching red, green, or blue ink).
Immediately after intervention.
Cognition-executive function
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Executive function was measured by the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)(Golden et al., 2002). It consisted of three subtasks: word reading (RED, GREEN, and BLUE), color naming (XXXX's colored in red, green, or blue ink), and incongruent color-word naming (the words RED, GREEN, and BLUE printed in not matching red, green, or blue ink).
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-executive function
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Executive function was measured by the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)(Golden et al., 2002). It consisted of three subtasks: word reading (RED, GREEN, and BLUE), color naming (XXXX's colored in red, green, or blue ink), and incongruent color-word naming (the words RED, GREEN, and BLUE printed in not matching red, green, or blue ink).
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Cognition-executive function
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Executive function was measured by the Stroop Color and Word Test (SCWT)(Golden et al., 2002). It consisted of three subtasks: word reading (RED, GREEN, and BLUE), color naming (XXXX's colored in red, green, or blue ink), and incongruent color-word naming (the words RED, GREEN, and BLUE printed in not matching red, green, or blue ink).
At 24 weeks after intervention.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Physical function-IADL
Time Frame: At baseline.
Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) were evaluated with eight abilities, including shopping, transportation, meal preparation, ordinary housework, doing laundry, medications, phone use, and managing finances. Individual items are summed to produce a scale that ranges from 0 to 8 (Lawton, & Brody; 1969; Pashmdarfard & Azad, 2020).
At baseline.
Physical function-IADL
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
IADL was evaluated with eight abilities including shopping, transportation, meal preparation, ordinary housework, doing laundry, medications, phone use, and managing finances. Individual items are summed to produce a scale that ranges from 0 to 8 (Lawton, & Brody; 1969; Pashmdarfard & Azad, 2020).
Immediately after intervention.
Physical function-IADL
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
IADL was evaluated with eight abilities including shopping, transportation, meal preparation, ordinary housework, doing laundry, medications, phone use, and managing finances. Individual items are summed to produce a scale that ranges from 0 to 8 (Lawton, & Brody; 1969; Pashmdarfard & Azad, 2020).
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-IADL
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
IADL was evaluated with eight abilities including shopping, transportation, meal preparation, ordinary housework, doing laundry, medications, phone use, and managing finances. Individual items are summed to produce a scale that ranges from 0 to 8 (Lawton, & Brody; 1969; Pashmdarfard & Azad, 2020).
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-IADL
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
IADL was evaluated with eight abilities including shopping, transportation, meal preparation, ordinary housework, doing laundry, medications, phone use, and managing finances. Individual items are summed to produce a scale that ranges from 0 to 8 (Lawton, & Brody; 1969; Pashmdarfard & Azad, 2020).
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-senior fitness test (SFT)
Time Frame: At baseline.

A series of functional test include chair stand test, 8-ft up and go test, chair sit and reach test, 6-min walk test, and unipedal stance test was developed by Rikli & Jones.

It has good reliability and validity and test-retest reliability is above 0.9 (Rikli & Jones, 2001).

At baseline.
Physical function-senior fitness test (SFT)
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.

A series of functional test include chair stand test, 8-ft up and go test, chair sit and reach test, 6-min walk test, and unipedal stance test was developed by Rikli & Jones.

It has good reliability and validity and test-retest reliability is above 0.9 (Rikli & Jones, 2001).

Immediately after intervention.
Physical function-senior fitness test (SFT)
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.

A series of functional test include chair stand test, 8-ft up and go test, chair sit and reach test, 6-min walk test, and unipedal stance test was developed by Rikli & Jones.

It has good reliability and validity and test-retest reliability is above 0.9 (Rikli & Jones, 2001).

At 4 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-senior fitness test (SFT)
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.

A series of functional test include chair stand test, 8-ft up and go test, chair sit and reach test, 6-min walk test, and unipedal stance test was developed by Rikli & Jones.

It has good reliability and validity and test-retest reliability is above 0.9 (Rikli & Jones, 2001).

At 12 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-senior fitness test (SFT)
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.

A series of functional test include chair stand test, 8-ft up and go test, chair sit and reach test, 6-min walk test, and unipedal stance test was developed by Rikli & Jones.

It has good reliability and validity and test-retest reliability is above 0.9 (Rikli & Jones, 2001).

At 24 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-unipedal stance test (UST)
Time Frame: At baseline.
Unipedal stance test was used to examine the static balance on the preferred leg. Participants performed three trials with the eyes open during the test (Goldberg, Casby, & Wasielewski, 2011) .
At baseline.
Physical function-unipedal stance test (UST)
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Unipedal stance test was used to examine the static balance on the preferred leg. Participants performed three trials with the eyes open during the test (Goldberg, Casby, & Wasielewski, 2011) .
Immediately after intervention.
Physical function-unipedal stance test (UST)
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Unipedal stance test was used to examine the static balance on the preferred leg. Participants performed three trials with the eyes open during the test (Goldberg, Casby, & Wasielewski, 2011) .
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-unipedal stance test (UST)
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Unipedal stance test was used to examine the static balance on the preferred leg. Participants performed three trials with the eyes open during the test (Goldberg, Casby, & Wasielewski, 2011) .
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Physical function-unipedal stance test (UST)
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Unipedal stance test was used to examine the static balance on the preferred leg. Participants performed three trials with the eyes open during the test (Goldberg, Casby, & Wasielewski, 2011) .
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS)
Time Frame: At baseline.

Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS): It is a 10-centimeter visual analog scale to measures individuals' perception of well-being. The score of GWBS ranged from 0 to 10 (Hawk et al., 2010).

Analog Scale (VAS) with a ten-centimeter horizontal line (Hawk et al., 2010).

At baseline.
Psychosocial factors-Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS)
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.

Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS): It is a 10-centimeter visual analog scale to measures individuals' perception of well-being. The score of GWBS ranged from 0 to 10 (Hawk et al., 2010).

Analog Scale (VAS) with a ten-centimeter horizontal line (Hawk et al., 2010).

Immediately after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS)
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.

Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS): It is a 10-centimeter visual analog scale to measures individuals' perception of well-being. The score of GWBS ranged from 0 to 10 (Hawk et al., 2010).

Analog Scale (VAS) with a ten-centimeter horizontal line (Hawk et al., 2010).

At 4 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS)
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.

Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS): It is a 10-centimeter visual analog scale to measures individuals' perception of well-being. The score of GWBS ranged from 0 to 10 (Hawk et al., 2010).

Analog Scale (VAS) with a ten-centimeter horizontal line (Hawk et al., 2010).

At 12 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS)
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.

Global Well-Being Scale (GWBS): It is a 10-centimeter visual analog scale to measures individuals' perception of well-being. The score of GWBS ranged from 0 to 10 (Hawk et al., 2010).

Analog Scale (VAS) with a ten-centimeter horizontal line (Hawk et al., 2010).

At 24 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS)
Time Frame: At baseline.

This scale was developed by Chang and Su (2011) in order to know the interpersonal relationship for middle-aged and older Adults.

It's composed of 22 questions related to the interpersonal relationship: close interaction, approach to others, and friendship support (Chang & Su, 2011).

At baseline.
Psychosocial factors-Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS)
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.

This scale was developed by Chang and Su (2011) in order to know the interpersonal relationship for middle-aged and older Adults.

It's composed of 22 questions related to the interpersonal relationship: close interaction, approach to others, and friendship support (Chang & Su, 2011).

Immediately after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS)
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.

This scale was developed by Chang and Su (2011) in order to know the interpersonal relationship for middle-aged and older Adults.

It's composed of 22 questions related to the interpersonal relationship: close interaction, approach to others, and friendship support (Chang & Su, 2011).

At 4 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS)
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.

This scale was developed by Chang and Su (2011) in order to know the interpersonal relationship for middle-aged and older Adults.

It's composed of 22 questions related to the interpersonal relationship: close interaction, approach to others, and friendship support (Chang & Su, 2011).

At 12 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS)
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.

This scale was developed by Chang and Su (2011) in order to know the interpersonal relationship for middle-aged and older Adults.

It's composed of 22 questions related to the interpersonal relationship: close interaction, approach to others, and friendship support (Chang & Su, 2011).

At 24 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-SF)
Time Frame: At baseline.
Chinese version of the GDS-S consisted 15 items with yes/no questions and higher scores indicate a more severe level of depression (Lu, Liu, & Yu, 1998; Pfeiffer, 1975).
At baseline.
Psychosocial factors-Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-SF)
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
Chinese version of the GDS-S consisted 15 items with yes/no questions and higher scores indicate a more severe level of depression (Lu, Liu, & Yu, 1998; Pfeiffer, 1975).
Immediately after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-SF)
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
Chinese version of the GDS-S consisted 15 items with yes/no questions and higher scores indicate a more severe level of depression (Lu, Liu, & Yu, 1998; Pfeiffer, 1975).
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-SF)
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
Chinese version of the GDS-S consisted 15 items with yes/no questions and higher scores indicate a more severe level of depression (Lu, Liu, & Yu, 1998; Pfeiffer, 1975).
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Psychosocial factors-Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-SF)
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
Chinese version of the GDS-S consisted 15 items with yes/no questions and higher scores indicate a more severe level of depression (Lu, Liu, & Yu, 1998; Pfeiffer, 1975).
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-Utility
Time Frame: At baseline.
EQ-5D-3L Taiwanese version questionnaire was selected to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) which was recommended in older adults and people with mild dementia (Aguirre, Kang, Hoare, Edwards, & Orrell, 2016; León-Salas et al., 2015). According to the self-report index scores, it can be converted to a single summary utility score by using the time trade-off (TTO) technique. The range of this EQ-5D-3L utility score (EQ5D-Utility) was -0.67 to 1.00 by using the Taiwanese value set (Lee et al., 2013), as the score closer to 1 indicated the better health, a negative score indicated worse than dead, and a 0.5 score could be acceptable.
At baseline.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-Utility
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
EQ-5D-3L Taiwanese version questionnaire was selected to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) which was recommended in older adults and people with mild dementia (Aguirre, Kang, Hoare, Edwards, & Orrell, 2016; León-Salas et al., 2015). According to the self-report index scores, it can be converted to a single summary utility score by using the time trade-off (TTO) technique. The range of this EQ-5D-3L utility score (EQ5D-Utility) was -0.67 to 1.00 by using the Taiwanese value set (Lee et al., 2013), as the score closer to 1 indicated the better health, a negative score indicated worse than dead, and a 0.5 score could be acceptable.
Immediately after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-Utility
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
EQ-5D-3L Taiwanese version questionnaire was selected to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) which was recommended in older adults and people with mild dementia (Aguirre, Kang, Hoare, Edwards, & Orrell, 2016; León-Salas et al., 2015). According to the self-report index scores, it can be converted to a single summary utility score by using the time trade-off (TTO) technique. The range of this EQ-5D-3L utility score (EQ5D-Utility) was -0.67 to 1.00 by using the Taiwanese value set (Lee et al., 2013), as the score closer to 1 indicated the better health, a negative score indicated worse than dead, and a 0.5 score could be acceptable.
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-Utility
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
EQ-5D-3L Taiwanese version questionnaire was selected to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) which was recommended in older adults and people with mild dementia (Aguirre, Kang, Hoare, Edwards, & Orrell, 2016; León-Salas et al., 2015). According to the self-report index scores, it can be converted to a single summary utility score by using the time trade-off (TTO) technique. The range of this EQ-5D-3L utility score (EQ5D-Utility) was -0.67 to 1.00 by using the Taiwanese value set (Lee et al., 2013), as the score closer to 1 indicated the better health, a negative score indicated worse than dead, and a 0.5 score could be acceptable.
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-Utility
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
EQ-5D-3L Taiwanese version questionnaire was selected to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) which was recommended in older adults and people with mild dementia (Aguirre, Kang, Hoare, Edwards, & Orrell, 2016; León-Salas et al., 2015). According to the self-report index scores, it can be converted to a single summary utility score by using the time trade-off (TTO) technique. The range of this EQ-5D-3L utility score (EQ5D-Utility) was -0.67 to 1.00 by using the Taiwanese value set (Lee et al., 2013), as the score closer to 1 indicated the better health, a negative score indicated worse than dead, and a 0.5 score could be acceptable.
At 24 weeks after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-visual analogue scale
Time Frame: At baseline.
A 20-cm visual analogue scale in which respondents are asked to rate their current health status ranging from 0 (Worst imaginable health state) to 100 (Chang et al., 2007; EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018).
At baseline.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-visual analogue scale
Time Frame: Immediately after intervention.
A 20-cm visual analogue scale in which respondents are asked to rate their current health status ranging from 0 (Worst imaginable health state) to 100 (Chang et al., 2007; EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018).
Immediately after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-visual analogue scale
Time Frame: At 4 weeks after intervention.
A 20-cm visual analogue scale in which respondents are asked to rate their current health status ranging from 0 (Worst imaginable health state) to 100 (Chang et al., 2007; EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018).
At 4 weeks after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-visual analogue scale
Time Frame: At 12 weeks after intervention.
A 20-cm visual analogue scale in which respondents are asked to rate their current health status ranging from 0 (Worst imaginable health state) to 100 (Chang et al., 2007; EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018).
At 12 weeks after intervention.
Quality of Life-EQ5D-visual analogue scale
Time Frame: At 24 weeks after intervention.
A 20-cm visual analogue scale in which respondents are asked to rate their current health status ranging from 0 (Worst imaginable health state) to 100 (Chang et al., 2007; EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018).
At 24 weeks after intervention.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Chia-Chi Chang, PhD, Taipei Medical University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (ACTUAL)

February 3, 2017

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

November 21, 2018

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

March 6, 2019

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

July 16, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 21, 2021

First Posted (ACTUAL)

July 30, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ACTUAL)

July 30, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 21, 2021

Last Verified

November 1, 2016

More Information

Terms related to this study

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe