Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background The decision between home-based (HC) and institutional care (IC) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is critical for patients, families, and healthcare systems, yet evidence on long-term trade-offs remains insufficient. Objective This study comprehensively compare the 5-year clinical, economic, and family-related outcomes between HC and IC for AD patients. Methods We conducted a prospective-retrospective cohort study involving 252 AD patients (HC = 124; IC = 128) and their families. Outcomes included cognitive and functional status (using Mini-Mental State Examination and Barthel index), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), medication adherence (Medication Possession Ratio and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale), healthcare costs, and family impact (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales and General Health Questionnaire). Results Analysis revealed a critical dichotomy: HC showed better early cognitive preservation but later accelerated decline, contrasting with IC's stable trajectory. IC demonstrated superior control of harmful behaviors and prevention of consequential events, while HC was associated with more significant medical complications. Medication adherence was sustainably higher in IC but progressively deteriorated in HC. Economically, HC's lower initial direct costs were offset by substantial indirect costs, while IC incurred higher but predictable direct expenditures. Crucially, the psychological and health impact on family progressed substantially in HC but remained low and stable in IC. Conclusions No single care model was universally superior. The HC versus IC decision involves strategic trade-offs across clinical, economic, and family domains. These findings advocate for personalized, dynamic care models that facilitate timely transitions, guided by patient needs and family capacity, to optimize long-term outcomes for both patients and their families.
Tan et al. (Fri,) studied this question.