Examining the Efficacy of the Telehealth Assessment and Skill-Building Kit (TASK III) Intervention for Stroke Caregivers: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stroke is a leading cause of serious, long-term disability and has a sudden onset. Upon discharge to the home setting, families are thrust into providing care, often without sufficient training from health care providers. Aligned with current patient and caregiver guidelines, the Telehealth Assessment and Skill-Building Kit (TASK III) is a nurse-led intervention designed to empower caregivers to address their own needs and those of the survivor using innovative skill-building strategies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test the short-term (immediately after the intervention at 8 wk) and long-term (12, 24, and 52 wk) efficacy of the TASK III intervention, compared with an information, support, and referral (ISR) group, to improve caregiver life changes (ie, changes in physical health, physical functioning, emotional well-being, and general health) as a result of providing care. METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial design will be used with baseline data collection from 296 family caregivers by telephone after the stroke survivor is discharged home. Caregivers randomly assigned to the ISR group (n=148, 50%) will receive information from the American Heart Association about stroke family caregiving. Caregivers randomly assigned to the TASK III group (n=148, 50%) will receive a TASK III resource guide and information from the American Heart Association. Both groups will receive 8 weekly calls from a nurse, with a booster call a month later. Outcomes will be assessed by blinded data collectors at 8, 12, 24, and 52 weeks. The primary outcome (at 8 wk) is caregiver life changes measured by the Bakas Caregiving Outcomes Scale. Secondary outcomes are depressive symptoms; other symptoms (eg, stress, fatigue, sleep, pain, and shortness of breath); unhealthy days; diet; exercise; and self-reported health care use. Mediators are task difficulty, threat appraisal, and self-efficacy. Program evaluation outcomes (satisfaction and technology ratings) will also be analyzed. RESULTS: The trial was registered on March 10, 2022. Enrollment and random assignment of the first participant was on November 30, 2022, with an anticipated completion of recruitment by November 30, 2025. Completion of the primary end point data analysis is anticipated by August 31, 2026, with results expected to be reported on ClinicalTrials.gov by April 1, 2027. As of October 9, 2024, a total of 198 (66.9% of the proposed total sample of 296) family caregivers have been enrolled and randomly assigned to the TASK III group (n=98, 49.5%) or the ISR group (n=100, 50.5%). The last update was performed on January 25, 2024. CONCLUSIONS: If the TASK III intervention is shown to be efficacious in the proposed randomized controlled clinical trial, our next goal will be to translate TASK III into ongoing stroke systems of care, providing a tremendous public health impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05304078; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05304078. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/67219.
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 | 0.043 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.012 |
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".