Cargando…

Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVES: We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of caregiver training on the well‐being of both people with dementia and their caregivers. Before the effect analysis, we conducted a process evaluation to estimate internal and external validity. This was anticipated to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Birkenhäger‐Gillesse, Elizabeth G., Achterberg, Wilco P., Janus, Sarah I. M., Zuidema, Sytse U.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33411391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.5404
_version_ 1783626639312158720
author Birkenhäger‐Gillesse, Elizabeth G.
Achterberg, Wilco P.
Janus, Sarah I. M.
Zuidema, Sytse U.
author_facet Birkenhäger‐Gillesse, Elizabeth G.
Achterberg, Wilco P.
Janus, Sarah I. M.
Zuidema, Sytse U.
author_sort Birkenhäger‐Gillesse, Elizabeth G.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of caregiver training on the well‐being of both people with dementia and their caregivers. Before the effect analysis, we conducted a process evaluation to estimate internal and external validity. This was anticipated to augment our understanding of the outcomes. METHODS: We focused on three questions. (a) Was the intervention performed as planned (internal validity)? (b) Can qualitative data be used to inform how the intervention evoked change? (c) Can the study outcomes be extrapolated to all caregivers living with people who have dementia (external validity)? RESULTS: Responses from participants assigned to the intervention group suggested that the intervention was feasible, could be performed as planned, and that modelling and discussions between participants were important. However, participant recruitment to the entire study was ultimately laborious because participants had issues with the study design (risk of being assigned to the control group) and referrers lacked familiarity with the training (new type of intervention). Participants were also younger and better educated compared with the general population. Some dropouts in the follow‐up period occurred due to the number of questionnaires, and this was more pronounced in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although we achieved high internal validity, we lack certainty about the external validity. We not only experienced general difficulty in recruiting participants but also tended to recruit a biased sample that was relatively young and well educated. These factors combine to limit our ability to extrapolate the results to the general population.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7756880
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77568802020-12-28 Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study Birkenhäger‐Gillesse, Elizabeth G. Achterberg, Wilco P. Janus, Sarah I. M. Zuidema, Sytse U. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Research Articles OBJECTIVES: We performed a randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of caregiver training on the well‐being of both people with dementia and their caregivers. Before the effect analysis, we conducted a process evaluation to estimate internal and external validity. This was anticipated to augment our understanding of the outcomes. METHODS: We focused on three questions. (a) Was the intervention performed as planned (internal validity)? (b) Can qualitative data be used to inform how the intervention evoked change? (c) Can the study outcomes be extrapolated to all caregivers living with people who have dementia (external validity)? RESULTS: Responses from participants assigned to the intervention group suggested that the intervention was feasible, could be performed as planned, and that modelling and discussions between participants were important. However, participant recruitment to the entire study was ultimately laborious because participants had issues with the study design (risk of being assigned to the control group) and referrers lacked familiarity with the training (new type of intervention). Participants were also younger and better educated compared with the general population. Some dropouts in the follow‐up period occurred due to the number of questionnaires, and this was more pronounced in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Although we achieved high internal validity, we lack certainty about the external validity. We not only experienced general difficulty in recruiting participants but also tended to recruit a biased sample that was relatively young and well educated. These factors combine to limit our ability to extrapolate the results to the general population. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2020-09-17 2021-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7756880/ /pubmed/33411391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.5404 Text en © 2020 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Birkenhäger‐Gillesse, Elizabeth G.
Achterberg, Wilco P.
Janus, Sarah I. M.
Zuidema, Sytse U.
Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
title Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
title_full Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
title_fullStr Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
title_full_unstemmed Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
title_short Caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: Process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
title_sort caregiver dementia training in caregiver‐patient dyads: process evaluation of a randomized controlled study
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7756880/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33411391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.5404
work_keys_str_mv AT birkenhagergillesseelizabethg caregiverdementiatrainingincaregiverpatientdyadsprocessevaluationofarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT achterbergwilcop caregiverdementiatrainingincaregiverpatientdyadsprocessevaluationofarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT janussarahim caregiverdementiatrainingincaregiverpatientdyadsprocessevaluationofarandomizedcontrolledstudy
AT zuidemasytseu caregiverdementiatrainingincaregiverpatientdyadsprocessevaluationofarandomizedcontrolledstudy