Development of a Home-Based Stress Management Toolkit for Dementia Caring Dyads: Protocol for a Pilot Intervention Development and Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners (dementia caring dyads) are at a heightened risk of experiencing stress-related symptoms and conditions. Yet, many dyadic stress management interventions have had limited uptake by health care systems and in the community. An intervention that combines simple, safe, easy-to-use, nonpharmacologic tools (eg, animatronic social pets, weighted blankets and garments, aromatherapy and bright light therapy devices, acupressure, and massage tools) that can be used in the home may be a promising approach to promote stress management among dementia caring dyads. OBJECTIVE: The proposed study aims to develop and user test a dyadic toolkit intervention composed of simple, tangible stress management tools for community-dwelling PLWD and their care partners. This study will also explore the feasibility of collecting several stress-related outcome measures to inform measurement selection for future studies. METHODS: A human-centered design (HCD) approach will be used to increase the likelihood of developing an intervention that will be translatable to real-world settings. This study consists of 2 phases. The first phase will address the discover, define, and design stages of HCD using qualitative focus groups with dementia caring dyads (N=12-16 dyads). Dyadic focus groups (3-4 groups anticipated) will be convened to understand participants' stress experiences and to co-design a stress management toolkit prototype. Rapid qualitative analysis will be used to analyze focus group data. In phase 2, the toolkit prototype will be user tested for 2 weeks in a new sample to address the validation step of HCD. A within-subjects (n=10 dyads), pre-post design will be used with measures of usability (frequency of toolkit use), feasibility (enrollment and withdrawal rates, adverse events/injuries), and acceptability (satisfaction, benefit) collected via questionnaires (at the end of weeks 1 and 2 of user testing) and focus groups (n=3-4 dyads/group at the end of week 2). The feasibility of collecting participant-reported, stress-related outcomes (neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia, caregiver stress, dyadic relationship strain) and salivary cortisol as a physiologic measure of stress will be assessed at baseline and after user testing. RESULTS: This study will yield a working prototype of a stress management toolkit for dementia caring dyads, as well as preliminary data to support the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. User testing will elucidate areas to refine the prototype and provide data to inform preliminary testing of the intervention. As of September 2022, this study has received institutional ethics board approval with phase 1 recruitment anticipated to begin January 2023. CONCLUSIONS: Few interventions have focused on combining simple, safe, low burden tools to promote stress management among community-dwelling dementia caring dyads. By involving families and exploring feasibility and acceptability at the onset of development, this intervention will have greater potential to be implemented and sustained in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05465551; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05465551. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/43098.
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 | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.010 |
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".