Development of a Web-Based Peer Support Program for Family Caregivers of Ventilator-Assisted Individuals Living in the Community: Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Across Europe, Canada, Australia, and the United States, the prevalence of home mechanical ventilation (HMV) prevalence is 6.6-12.9 per 100,000. At-home ventilator-assisted individuals (VAIs) are often vulnerable and highly comorbid, requiring complex care. In Canada, most VAI care is provided by family, leading to poor health-related quality of life and increased caregiver burden. No supportive interventions or peer support programs are tailored to VAI caregivers. Owing to the financial, geographic, and time limitations, Web-based support delivery may especially meet VAI family caregiver needs. We have developed a peer mentor training and Web-based peer support program for VAI caregivers including information-sharing, peer-to-peer communication, and peer mentorship. OBJECTIVE: Study Stage 1 aims to (1) evaluate the face and content validity of the peer mentor training program and (2) investigate participant satisfaction. Study Stage 2 aims to evaluate (1) the feasibility of participant recruitment and Web-based program delivery; (2) acceptability, usability, and satisfactoriness; (3) experiences of caregivers and peer mentors with the Web-based peer support program; and (4) effect of the Web-based peer support program on caregiver health outcomes. METHODS: Study Stage 1: We will train 7 caregivers to act as peer mentors for the Web-based peer support program trial; they will complete questionnaires rating the utility of individual training sessions and the training program overall. Study Stage 2: We will recruit 30 caregiver peers for a pilot randomized controlled trial of the 12-week Web-based peer support program using a waitlist control; the program includes private chat, a public discussion forum, and weekly moderated chats. Caregiver peers will be randomized to the intervention or waitlist control group using a 1:1 ratio using Randomize.net. Both groups will complete pre- and postintervention health outcome questionnaires (ie, caregiving impact, mastery, coping, personal gain, positive affect, and depression). Caregiver peers in the intervention arm will only complete a program evaluation and will be invited to participate in an interview to provide insight into their experience. Peer mentors will be invited to participate in a Web-based focus group to provide insight into their experience as mentors. We will judge the feasibility per the number of recruitment and program delivery goals met, use analysis of covariance to compare health outcomes between intervention and control groups, and analyze qualitative data thematically. RESULTS: Peer mentor training was completed with 5 caregivers in July 2018. To date, 2 caregivers have beta-tested the website, and the Web-based peer support program trial will commence in September 2018. Results are expected by early 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This study will result in the production and initial evaluation of a rigorously developed, evidence- and stakeholder-informed Web-based peer training and peer support program for caregivers of VAIs residing at home. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/11827.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".