Feasibility, acceptability and potential helpfulness of the PROACTIVE intervention in Flanders, Belgium: A survey study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
27
10
2022
accepted:
29
07
2023
medline:
14
8
2023
pubmed:
10
8
2023
entrez:
10
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to explore the feasibility of a Flemish adaptation of the New York University Caregiver Intervention (i.e., PROACTIVE intervention) modifying the recruitment and intervention content for informal caregivers of people with early cognitive decline, and across different subgroups. A feasibility study is necessary in order to reduce research waste for intervention adaptation and evaluation. Researchers constructed, tested, and sent out a survey consisting of 43 questions on the following topics: awareness of symptoms of early cognitive decline, levels of cognitive performance using the updated Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS2), acceptability, and potential helpfulness of the intervention, and sociodemographic characteristics. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression with SAS 9.4©. Qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis. A total of 463 informal caregivers completed the survey (mean age 58.8 ± 11.8, 83.6% female). Among them, 230 respondents who cared for people with cognitive decline indicated they would probably or certainly participate in the study. Identified factors influencing the recruitment were cognition, co-habitation, education, and employment status. Over half of the target caregivers indicated almost all services from the intervention could satisfy their needs. A majority perceived the PROACTIVE intervention would be helpful (69.4%), especially the CPS2 = 3 (76.1%) and CPS2 = 4 (74.1%) subgroups. The recruitment of target participants for a subsequent RCT evaluation study is feasible, and identified associated factors should be considered during the recruitment process. The PROACTIVE intervention and core components except 'peer-group participation' were perceived as helpful by most caregivers. The CPS2 = 3-4 subgroups were most accepting of the intervention and were most likely to benefit from the intervention.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to explore the feasibility of a Flemish adaptation of the New York University Caregiver Intervention (i.e., PROACTIVE intervention) modifying the recruitment and intervention content for informal caregivers of people with early cognitive decline, and across different subgroups. A feasibility study is necessary in order to reduce research waste for intervention adaptation and evaluation.
METHODS
Researchers constructed, tested, and sent out a survey consisting of 43 questions on the following topics: awareness of symptoms of early cognitive decline, levels of cognitive performance using the updated Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS2), acceptability, and potential helpfulness of the intervention, and sociodemographic characteristics. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression with SAS 9.4©. Qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 463 informal caregivers completed the survey (mean age 58.8 ± 11.8, 83.6% female). Among them, 230 respondents who cared for people with cognitive decline indicated they would probably or certainly participate in the study. Identified factors influencing the recruitment were cognition, co-habitation, education, and employment status. Over half of the target caregivers indicated almost all services from the intervention could satisfy their needs. A majority perceived the PROACTIVE intervention would be helpful (69.4%), especially the CPS2 = 3 (76.1%) and CPS2 = 4 (74.1%) subgroups.
CONCLUSION
The recruitment of target participants for a subsequent RCT evaluation study is feasible, and identified associated factors should be considered during the recruitment process. The PROACTIVE intervention and core components except 'peer-group participation' were perceived as helpful by most caregivers. The CPS2 = 3-4 subgroups were most accepting of the intervention and were most likely to benefit from the intervention.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37561750
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289952
pii: PONE-D-22-29686
pmc: PMC10414657
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0289952Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Am J Psychiatry. 2004 May;161(5):850-6
pubmed: 15121650
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Jan;19(1-2):234-9
pubmed: 19886874
BMJ Open. 2022 Nov 2;12(11):e063891
pubmed: 36323468
Int Psychogeriatr. 2015 Jun;27(6):927-36
pubmed: 25566686
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014 Sep;34(5):502-8
pubmed: 24697967
Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Mar 24;14:395-408
pubmed: 35359800
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 04;18(13):
pubmed: 34281087
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007 Sep;15(9):780-9
pubmed: 17804831
Prev Med. 2021 Jun;147:106522
pubmed: 33744328
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Sep 14;12:705188
pubmed: 34594249
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2004 Jan;59(1):P27-34
pubmed: 14722336
Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007 Apr;22(4):286-93
pubmed: 17022109
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Apr;33(4):587-95
pubmed: 24711319
J Public Health Dent. 2011 Winter;71 Suppl 1:S69-79
pubmed: 21656958
Prog Neurobiol. 2013 Nov;110:54-62
pubmed: 23689068
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 25;11(1):e047529
pubmed: 33495265
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Oct;36(10):3179-3187
pubmed: 33886027
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Apr;33(4):596-604
pubmed: 24711320
Age Ageing. 2022 Dec 5;51(12):
pubmed: 36580387
BMJ. 2021 Aug 3;374:n1679
pubmed: 34344699
J Sch Psychol. 2021 Feb;84:1-18
pubmed: 33581765
Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2013 May;28(3):228-38
pubmed: 23528880
Soc Sci Med. 2006 Aug;63(4):957-67
pubmed: 16616406
Lancet Public Health. 2022 Feb;7(2):e105-e125
pubmed: 34998485
Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Sep;30(5):1726-1734
pubmed: 34423504
J Gerontol Soc Work. 2019 Jul;62(5):543-563
pubmed: 31166157
J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2016 Jan;29(1):47-55
pubmed: 26251111
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016 Mar 1;17(3):188-92
pubmed: 26805753
Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2021 Sep 30;26(9):556-571
pubmed: 34590467
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2016;42(3-4):198-214
pubmed: 27669054
BMJ. 2021 Sep 30;374:n2061
pubmed: 34593508
Gerontologist. 2018 Mar 19;58(2):e97-e106
pubmed: 29106531
J Appl Gerontol. 2019 Sep;38(9):1253-1281
pubmed: 28645235
J Clin Nurs. 2019 Feb;28(3-4):629-640
pubmed: 30182488
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Aug;69(8):2290-2297
pubmed: 33959952
BMC Geriatr. 2016 Sep 23;16(1):164
pubmed: 27662829
PLoS One. 2016 Mar 15;11(3):e0150205
pubmed: 26978655
Psychol Aging. 2021 Nov;36(7):834-854
pubmed: 34591552
Aging Ment Health. 2020 Oct;24(10):1700-1708
pubmed: 31364866