Mindfulness-Based App to Reduce Stress in Caregivers of Persons With Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias: Protocol for a Single-Blind Feasibility Proof-of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers (ie, individuals who provide assistance to a known person with health or functional needs, often unpaid) experience high levels of stress. Caregiver stress is associated with negative outcomes for both caregivers and care recipients. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) show promise for improving stress, emotional distress, and sleep disturbance in caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Commercially available mobile mindfulness apps can deliver MBIs to caregivers of persons with ADRD in a feasible and cost-effective manner. OBJECTIVE: We are conducting a single-blind feasibility proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial (RCT; National Institutes of Health [NIH] stage 1B) comparing 2 free mobile apps: the active intervention Healthy Minds Program (HMP) with within-app text tailored for addressing stress among caregivers of persons with ADRD, versus Wellness App (WA), a time- and dose-matched educational control also tailored for caregivers of persons with ADRD. METHODS: We aim to recruit 80 geographically diverse and stressed caregivers of persons with ADRD. Interested caregivers use a link or QR code on a recruitment flyer to complete a web-based eligibility screener. Research assistants conduct enrollment phone calls, during which participants provide informed consent digitally. After participants complete baseline surveys, we randomize them to the mindfulness-based intervention (HMP) or educational control podcast app (WA) and instruct them to listen to prescribed content for 10 minutes per day (70 minutes per week) for 12 weeks. Caregivers are blinded to intervention versus control. The study team checks adherence weekly and contacts participants to promote adherence as needed. Participants complete web-based self-report measures at baseline, posttest, and follow-up; weekly process measures are also completed. Primary outcomes are a priori set feasibility benchmarks. Secondary outcomes are stress, emotional distress, sleep disturbance, caregiver burden, mindfulness, awareness, connection, insight, and purpose. We will calculate 1-sided 95% CI to assess feasibility benchmarks. Effect sizes of change in outcomes will be used to examine the proof of concept. RESULTS: Recruitment started on February 20, 2023. We have enrolled 27 caregivers (HMP: n=14; WA: n=13) as of June 2023. Funding began in August 2022, and we plan to finish enrollment by December 2023. Data analysis is expected to begin in May 2024 when all follow-ups are complete; publication of findings will follow. CONCLUSIONS: Through this trial, we aim to establish feasibility benchmarks for HMP and WA, as well as establish a proof of concept that HMP improves stress (primary quantitative outcome), emotional distress, sleep, and mindfulness more than WA. Results will inform a future efficacy trial (NIH stage II). HMP has the potential to be a cost-effective solution to reduce stress in caregivers of persons with ADRD, benefiting caregiver health and quality of care as well as patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05732038; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05732038. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50108.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".