Agitation and Mood in People with Dementia

Analyzing a research using a CASP critical appraisal tool

1. Did the trial address a clearly focused issue?

The trial addressed a clearly focused issue because the population covered was old people who were aged between seventy-four years and one hundred and their years (Moyle et al. 2014). The mean age was eighty-five years and a half. The group used to so the research are people who have a common characteristic which is, all of them have dementia which is either mild or severe. The samples also have a common characteristic which they all have an agitated behavior. Therefore, the research was explicitly addressed.

2. Was there a randomization of the assignment of patients to treatments?

The assignment was randomized (Moyle et al. 2014). Election of participants was from a sample of sixty. Then blocks were developed, and six samples were taken from every block. Selection of six participants per group is intended to balance the equation of the size of the sample. Every block was equal, and the selection of equal sample was a way that increased the possibility of having examples that are not determined by the researcher depending on their interest but because they have a common characteristic which is dementia that is either mild or severe. Participants were identified using a computer program. However not all of them who completed the process since some died before the research was over.

3. Did the research account for all the patients who participated in the research properly at the conclusion?

The patients who were used in the analysis were properly accounted for because the entire participant went through the same process (Moyle et al. 2014). None of the participants completes the process before the other, and they all went through the same process. All the patients went through a two-treatment and two sequence process until they reached the end. All the participants went through treatment at the same time. Equal treatment reduced the chances of bias. However, some of the participants died before the final results of the research were recorded.

4. Were patients, health workers, and study personnel 'blind' to treatment?

The patients, health worker, and study personnel were not given a chance to know the results of the process (Moyle et al. 2014). The trained assistants were not talking to the participants who took part in the process. The assistants never made any physical contact with the participants. The assistant was ordered not to make any indication or act in a way that would influence the results of the research. No deliberate communication either through touching or conversation was allowed to take place between the participants and the assistants.

5. Were the characteristics of the group the same at the start of the trial?

The groups used in the research were not equal. The study had more women compared to men (Moyle et al. 2014). The average age was eighty-sixed, and a half but the research involved people who had different ages. The research also involved participant who has enough support and verbal agitation. But they all had a common behavior which was agitation.

6. Howe was the group treated in addition to the experimental intervention, and was there some equality?

The participants were treated equally during the massage sessions, and every foot was massaged for five minutes (Moyle et al. 2014). Massage therapists did the message to all participants. The massage therapists included gliding, light pressure massage, flexion and rhythmical strokes in their massage activities. The quiet treatment was also the same among all participants, and it took ten minutes for every participant.

(B) What are the results?

There was an increase in agitation in the quiet test and the massage session (Moyle et al. 2014). The increase was higher in the quiet presence, and it was low in massage participants. Those in quiet presence reported an increase in alertness while those participating in massage reported a reduction in alertness.

7. How large was the treatment effect?

The outcome effect was big because it measured the following: CMIA Total, CMAI physical non-aggression, CMAI physical aggression, CMAI verbal non-aggression, CMAI verbal aggression, OERS anger, OERS anxiety, OERS pleasure, OERS sadness, and OERS general alertness. All the outcomes were clearly specified in a table (Moyle et al. 2014).

8. How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?

Estimation of the process was high because the participants and the assistants were able to maintain confidentiality and nobody influence the results by releasing some crucial information (Moyle et al. 2014). All samples were collected based on the fact that their age was in the required age group and no communication took place among the participants and the assistants as they went through the quiet presence and massage processes.

10. Were all clinically important outcomes considered?

The results ought to have provided information on the results that could be achieved if the quiet participation and massage sessions varied depending on the degree of dementia and whether age and gender affected the alertness (Moyle et al. 2014). However, the lacking details do not affect my decision.

11. Were the benefits of the research worth the harms and costs?

The results were worth the cost. The researcher got to know how people with dementia reach to quit presence and to a massage (Moyle et al. 2014). It can be used to support further research in future. The results can also be used to backup some argument.

Reference

Moyle, W, Cooke, M, Beattie, E, Shum, D, O`Dwyer, S & Barrett, S 2014, Foot massage versus quiet presence on agitation and mood in people with dementia: a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, v. 51, pp.856-864

Cite this page