Adapting a Dutch Web-Based Intervention to Support Family Caregivers of People With Dementia in the UK Context: Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Around 700,000 family caregivers provide unpaid care for 900,000 people living with dementia in the United Kingdom. Few family caregivers receive support for their own psychological needs and funding for community respite services has declined. These trends are seen across Europe as demographic and budgetary pressures have intensified due to public spending cuts arising from the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. The World Health Organization has prioritized the need to expand the provision of support for caregivers and families of people with dementia by 2025. Web-based interventions have the potential for development as they require modest investment and can be accessed by family caregivers at home. Further cost benefits can be realized by adapting existing interventions with demonstrated effectiveness for new contexts. This paper reports initial findings from the CareCoach study, which is adapting Partner in Balance (PiB), a web-based coaching intervention developed in the Netherlands, for family caregivers in the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to work with unpaid family caregivers and staff in adapting the Dutch web-based support tool PiB to improve its acceptability and usability for use in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Accelerated Experience-Based Co-Design (AEBCD) was used with caregivers, staff, and core stakeholders. Interviews, workshops, and stakeholder consultations were conducted. Data were analyzed iteratively. Recommendations for the redesign of PiB for use across the United Kingdom were adjudicated by the study Adaptation Working Party. RESULTS: Sixteen caregivers and 17 staff took part in interviews. Thirteen caregivers and 17 staff took part in workshops. Most (n=26) participants were White, female, and retired. All except 4 caregivers (2 male and 2 female) found the PiB's offer of web-based self-help learning acceptable. Caregivers identified complexity and lack of inclusivity in some wording and video resources as problematic. The staff took a stronger perspective on the lack of inclusivity in PiB video resources. Staff and caregivers coproduced new inclusive wording and recommended creating new videos to adapt PiB for the UK context. CONCLUSIONS: AEBCD methods facilitated the engagement of caregivers and staff and advanced the adaptation of the PiB complex intervention. An important addition to the AEBCD method in this process was the work of an Adaptation Working Party, which adjudicated and agreed to new wording where this could not be established in consultation with caregivers and staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12540555; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12540555.
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 | 0,012 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».