Acceptability of an Intervention to Prevent Older Adult Mistreatment Among Family Caregivers to Persons With Dementia: Multimethod Pilot Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Older adult mistreatment occurs in many as one-half of dementia care partners. Psychological mistreatment is the most common form of older adult mistreatment by family caregivers and is known to create mental health morbidities among care recipients. The Knowledge and Interpersonal Skills to Develop Enhanced Relationships (KINDER) intervention is among the first older adult mistreatment prevention interventions focused on family caregivers. KINDER was designed to prevent psychological mistreatment of older adults. Caregivers found the initial asynchronous web-based version (KINDER 1.0) to be acceptable but expressed a desire to engage with other family caregivers. KINDER was revised to integrate 3 facilitated small group discussion sessions conducted by videoconference. This study examines the acceptability of a revised KINDER intervention. This research addresses the extent to which caregivers find a novel approach to older adult mistreatment prevention to be acceptable. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the acceptability of the revised KINDER intervention. METHODS: The investigators conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of family caregivers following participation in KINDER (N=11) and collected postintervention survey data (N=71). The qualitative interview codebook and survey questions were informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon et al. Components of acceptability in this framework include affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy at completing activities. Qualitative interviews were coded by 2 independent coders using a thematic analytic approach. Survey data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. RESULTS: Of the 98 caregivers who attended KINDER, 71 (72%) completed satisfaction surveys. Caregivers reported high levels of overall satisfaction with KINDER; 80% (53/66) of participants reported they were "Very Satisfied" with the intervention, and 20% (13/66) indicated they were "Satisfied." More than 80% of caregivers (56/69, 81%) rated the newly added group discussions as being "Very valuable." Qualitative findings supported positive attitudes revealed in survey responses. Themes addressed (1) the interventions' alignment with caregiver values (affective attitude, intervention coherence, ethicality), (2) beliefs about the effectiveness of the program (perceived effectiveness), (3) difficulty participating in the program relative to its perceived overall value (burden, opportunity cost, self-efficacy), and (4) recommendations to further improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that KINDER was well received among family caregivers, who reported high levels of satisfaction and positive feedback on its components. The addition of virtual group discussion sessions was particularly valued. The use of multiple data collection methods in this research provided a comprehensive understanding of caregiver experiences. This study contributes to current knowledge by demonstrating the acceptability of a novel intervention to prevent older adult mistreatment by family caregivers to persons with dementia. Future research should focus on testing the efficacy of KINDER and exploring its implementation in health and social service settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05783102; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05783102.
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 | 0,014 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».