Prioritizing Support Offered to Caregivers by Examining the Status Quo and Opportunities for Enhancement When Using Web-Based Self-reported Health Questionnaires: Descriptive Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregivers (RCI) offers evidence-based interventions to promote caregivers' health and well-being. Trained coaches regularly meet with caregivers to offer education and instructions to improve caregiver health, build skill sets, and increase resilience. Two of these interventions, RCI Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH) and Operation Family Caregiver (OFC), use a set of caregiver-reported questionnaires to monitor caregivers' health status and needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe how web-based assessment questionnaires are used to identify and monitor caregiver status in the RCI REACH and OFC programs and outlines perceived enhancements to the web-based system that could support caregiver-coach encounters by directing priorities. METHODS: This was a descriptive, qualitative study. Data were collected via semistructured interviews with caregivers and coaches in the RCI REACH and OFC programs from July 2020 to October 2020. During the interviews, participants were asked to describe how the assessment questionnaires were used to inform caregiver-coach encounters, perceived usefulness of enhancements to web-based display, and preference for the structure of score results. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using structural and interpretive codes from a structured codebook. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes and summarize the results. RESULTS: A total of 25 caregivers (RCI REACH: 13/25, 52%; OFC: 12/25, 48%) and 11 coaches (RCI REACH: 5/11, 45%; OFC: 6/11, 55%) were interviewed. Most caregivers indicated that the assessment questions were relevant to their caregiving experience. Some caregivers and coaches indicated that they thought the assessment should be administered multiple times throughout the program to evaluate the caregiver progress. Overall, caregivers did not want their scores to be compared with those of other caregivers, and there was heterogeneity in how caregivers preferred to view their results at the question or topic level. Coaches were uncertain as to which and how much of the results from the self-reported questionnaires should be shared with caregivers. Overall, the results were very similar, regardless of program affiliation (RCI REACH vs OFC). CONCLUSIONS: Web-based and procedural enhancements were identified to enrich caregiver-coach encounters. New and enhanced strategies for using web-based assessment questionnaires to direct priorities in the caregiver-coach encounters included integrating figures showing caregiver progress at the individual caregiver level, ability to toggle results through different figures focused on individual versus aggregate results, and support for interpreting scores. The results of this qualitative study will drive the next steps for RCI's web-based platform and expand on current standards for administering self-reported questionnaires in clinical practice settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,017 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».