Acceptability of an Intervention to Prevent Older Adult Mistreatment Among Family Caregivers to Persons With Dementia: Multimethod Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adult mistreatment occurs in many as one-half of dementia care partners. Psychological mistreatment is the most common form of older adult mistreatment by family caregivers and is known to create mental health morbidities among care recipients. The Knowledge and Interpersonal Skills to Develop Enhanced Relationships (KINDER) intervention is among the first older adult mistreatment prevention interventions focused on family caregivers. KINDER was designed to prevent psychological mistreatment of older adults. Caregivers found the initial asynchronous web-based version (KINDER 1.0) to be acceptable but expressed a desire to engage with other family caregivers. KINDER was revised to integrate 3 facilitated small group discussion sessions conducted by videoconference. This study examines the acceptability of a revised KINDER intervention. This research addresses the extent to which caregivers find a novel approach to older adult mistreatment prevention to be acceptable. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the acceptability of the revised KINDER intervention. METHODS: The investigators conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of family caregivers following participation in KINDER (N=11) and collected postintervention survey data (N=71). The qualitative interview codebook and survey questions were informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon et al. Components of acceptability in this framework include affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, and self-efficacy at completing activities. Qualitative interviews were coded by 2 independent coders using a thematic analytic approach. Survey data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages. RESULTS: Of the 98 caregivers who attended KINDER, 71 (72%) completed satisfaction surveys. Caregivers reported high levels of overall satisfaction with KINDER; 80% (53/66) of participants reported they were "Very Satisfied" with the intervention, and 20% (13/66) indicated they were "Satisfied." More than 80% of caregivers (56/69, 81%) rated the newly added group discussions as being "Very valuable." Qualitative findings supported positive attitudes revealed in survey responses. Themes addressed (1) the interventions' alignment with caregiver values (affective attitude, intervention coherence, ethicality), (2) beliefs about the effectiveness of the program (perceived effectiveness), (3) difficulty participating in the program relative to its perceived overall value (burden, opportunity cost, self-efficacy), and (4) recommendations to further improve the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that KINDER was well received among family caregivers, who reported high levels of satisfaction and positive feedback on its components. The addition of virtual group discussion sessions was particularly valued. The use of multiple data collection methods in this research provided a comprehensive understanding of caregiver experiences. This study contributes to current knowledge by demonstrating the acceptability of a novel intervention to prevent older adult mistreatment by family caregivers to persons with dementia. Future research should focus on testing the efficacy of KINDER and exploring its implementation in health and social service settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05783102; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05783102.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".