Acceptability of a Web-Based Financial Education Intervention for Latino Caregivers: Mixed Methods Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Latino caregivers of persons living with dementia face distinct financial challenges, spending nearly half of their annual household income on caregiving expenses, almost twice as much as non-Latino caregivers. Cultural norms, limited access to financial resources, and underrepresentation in intervention research compound this economic burden. There remains a critical gap in evidence-based, culturally tailored programs designed to reduce financial stress among Latino caregivers. Objective: This study examines the acceptability and perceived value of the Confidently Navigating Financial Decisions and Enhancing Financial Well-Being in Dementia Caregiving (CONFIDENCE) program, a culturally tailored, web-based psychoeducational intervention designed to reduce financial stress and improve financial well-being among Latino caregivers of persons living with dementia. Methods: We applied a multimethod approach to evaluate the acceptability of the CONFIDENCE pilot. Following completion, 14 caregivers participated in in-depth, semistructured interviews, and 27 (39% of program participants) completed a 14-item satisfaction survey. The study was guided by a theoretical framework of acceptability composed of 7 domains: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy. Interview transcripts were analyzed independently by 4 coders (SM, RAR, DS, and KM) using thematic analysis, and survey responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Participants overall reported satisfaction with the CONFIDENCE program. Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts revealed four themes: (1) the perceived need for financial intervention; (2) perceived intervention effectiveness, particularly in improving financial knowledge, communication skills, and mental health; (3) positive emotional responses to participation, with high praise for the program's group setting and cultural relevance; and (4) recommendations for intervention improvement, including shorter sessions and technology support. Survey results confirmed high acceptability, with 96% (n=26) of respondents reporting they enjoyed the program. All participants (n=27, 100%) said they would recommend CONFIDENCE to other Latino caregivers. Participants reported improved awareness of available resources, increased confidence in financial decision-making, and reduced financial stress. Caregivers appreciated the group setting, which allowed for mutual interaction and learning; discussions fostered emotional connection and peer learning. Participants praised the content's trustworthiness and relevance. Although most agreed that participation required minimal effort, barriers such as time constraints and technology challenges were noted. Conclusions: Findings suggest that CONFIDENCE is acceptable among Latino caregivers of persons living with dementia. Culturally tailored content, group learning, and an emphasis on practical financial strategies were central to the program's success. Findings will inform program refinements, including limiting burden by addressing barriers while maintaining strengths such as group learning to optimize engagement. Considering the unique economic burdens Latino caregivers face, it is vital to develop and support interventions tailored to their unique needs. This study adds to the limited but growing literature on financial well-being interventions for Latino caregivers and highlights the value of culturally informed, community-driven approaches to supporting caregiver financial resilience.
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 | 0.042 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".