Dataset Information

Evaluating the provision of Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) for informal caregivers of older adults discharged home from hospital: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

There are personal and societal benefits from caregiving; however, caregiving can jeopardise caregivers' health. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) programme provides structured nurse support, through telephone outreach, to informal caregivers of older adults following discharge from acute hospital care to home. The trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of the FECH+ programme on caregivers' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after care recipients' hospital discharge.

Methods and analysis

A multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded baseline and outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis, adhering to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will be conducted. Participants (N=925 dyads) comprising informal home caregiver (18 years or older) and care recipient (70 years or older) will be recruited when the care recipient is discharged from hospital. Caregivers of patients discharged from wards in three hospitals in Australia (one in Western Australia and two in Queensland) are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group receive the FECH+ programme, which provides structured support and problem-solving for the caregiver after the care recipient's discharge, in addition to usual care. The control group receives usual care. The programme is delivered by a registered nurse and comprises six 30-45 min telephone support sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome is caregivers' HRQOL measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life-eight dimensions. Secondary outcomes include caregiver preparedness, strain and distress and use of healthcare services. Changes in HRQOL between groups will be compared using a mixed regression model that accounts for the correlation between repeated measurements.

Ethics and dissemination

Participants will provide written informed consent. Ethics approvals have been obtained from Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group, Curtin University, Griffith University, Gold Coast Health Service and government health data linkage services. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12620000060943.

SUBMITTER: Hill AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8217916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Polyhandicap (PLH), defined by a combination of profound intellectual impairment and serious motor deficits, is a severe condition with complex disabilities. In France, care of the large majority of PLH individuals is managed in specialised rehabilitation centres or residential facilities, but some of PLH individuals are cared for at home. The aims of this study were to assess the self-perceived burden among informal caregivers of PLH individuals and to identify potential determinants of this burden. DESIGN:Cross-sectional study (Neuropaediatric Department, Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France). SETTINGS:PLH children were recruited from a specialised paediatric/neurological department. PARTICIPANTS:The selection criteria of caregivers were age above 18 years and being the PLH individual's next of kin. OUTCOMES MEASURES:From March 2015 to December 2016, data were collected from the caregivers, including sociodemographical data, health status, psycho-behavioural data (quality of life, mood disorders and coping) and self-perceived burden. In addition, the health status of the PLH individual was collected. Relationships between the burden scores and potential determinants were tested (correlations coefficients, Mann-Whitney tests, generalised estimating equations models). RESULTS:Eighty-four children were eligible; 77 families returned their questionnaire. The informal caregivers of PLH children experienced a high level of perceived burden (scores ranged from 55±20?to 81±12). Eighty per cent of them had more than 5?hours of daily caregiving and 51% of them had to get up more than twice during the night. The main factors associated with caregiver burden were age, financial issues, health status, daily care and coping strategies. The patients' health status was not associated with caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS:Some of the caregiver burden determinants might be modifiable. These findings should help healthcare workers and health-decision makers implement specific and appropriate interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02400528.

Project description:BackgroundDue to a growing shortage in residential care, people with dementia will increasingly be encouraged to live at home for longer. Although people with dementia prefer extended independent living, this also puts more pressure on both their informal and formal care networks. To support (in)formal caregivers of people with dementia, there is growing interest in unobtrusive contactless in-home monitoring technologies that allow caregivers to remotely monitor the lifestyle, health, and safety of their care recipients. Despite their potential, these solutions will only be viable if they meet the expectations and needs of formal and informal caregivers of people with dementia.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the expected benefits, barriers, needs, and requirements toward unobtrusive in-home monitoring from the perspective of formal and informal caregivers of community-dwelling people with dementia.MethodsA combination of semistructured interviews and focus groups was used to collect data among informal (n=19) and formal (n=16) caregivers of people with dementia. Both sets of participants were presented with examples of unobtrusive in-home monitoring followed by questions addressing expected benefits, barriers, and needs. Relevant in-home monitoring goals were identified using a previously developed topic list. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and inductively analyzed. Requirements for unobtrusive in-home monitoring were elicited based on the procedure of van Velsen and Bergvall-Kåreborn.ResultsFormal and informal caregivers saw unobtrusive in-home monitoring as a support tool that should particularly be used to monitor (the risk of) falls, day and night rhythm, personal hygiene, nocturnal restlessness, and eating and drinking behavior. Generally, (in)formal caregivers reported cross-checking self-care information, extended independent living, objective communication, prevention and proactive measures, emotional reassurance, and personalized and optimized care as the key benefits of unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Main concerns centered around privacy, information overload, and ethical concerns related to dehumanizing care. Furthermore, 16 requirements for unobtrusive in-home monitoring were generated that specified desired functions, how the technology should communicate with the user, which services surrounding the technology were seen as needed, and how the technology should be integrated into the existing work context.ConclusionsDespite the presence of barriers, formal and informal caregivers of people with dementia generally saw value in unobtrusive in-home monitoring, and felt that these systems could contribute to a shift from reactive to more proactive and less obtrusive care. However, the full potential of unobtrusive in-home monitoring can only unfold if relevant concerns are considered. Our requirements can inform the development of more acceptable and goal-directed in-home monitoring technologies to support home-based dementia care.

Project description:BackgroundIt is estimated that more than 57 million people have dementia worldwide, and it is one of the leading causes of care dependency in old age. Relatives and other informal caregivers are the most important support for individuals with dementia, but caring for a loved one with dementia may burden the caregiver. Caregiver burden may have adverse outcomes for both the informal caregiver and the care recipient, including decreased quality of life. Caregiver burden is associated with several factors concerning the informal caregiver, the care recipient, and relational and other contextual factors. The aim of this study was to explore which factors are associated with informal caregivers' subjective burden when caring for individuals living at home with dementia.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional survey among informal caregivers of home-dwelling individuals with dementia in all five geographical regions of Norway. There were 540 informal caregivers who participated, 415 of whom were included in the regression analyses. Caregivers' subjective burden was assessed with the Relatives' Stress Scale. Covariates included were classified into four levels: individual (twofold: informal caregiver and person with dementia), relational, community, and time. Linear multivariable regression analyses were used to identify associations between subjective burden and included factors.ResultsSeveral covariates were statistically significantly associated with subjective burden at the four levels. These covariates included self-rated health, mental distress, age, coping through resignation and denial, emotional and instrumental support, substance use, and humor at the informal caregiver level; behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, dementia severity, and degree of disability at the care recipient level; the extent of care, being the primary caregiver, and previous relationship satisfaction at the relational context level; and informal caregivers spending time with friends, leisure activities, social restriction, and knowledge of available health services at the community context level.ConclusionsInformal caregivers' mental distress and care recipients' neuropsychiatric symptoms were the factors with the strongest association with subjective burden.

Project description:BackgroundAs the number of persons with dementia is increasing, there has been a call for establishing sustainable clinical pathways for coordinating care and support for this group. The LIVE@Home.Path trial is a multicomponent, multi-disciplinary intervention combining learning, innovation, volunteer support and empowerment. To implement the intervention, a municipal coordinator has a crucial role. Implementation research on multicomponent interventions is complex and we conducted a qualitative study, aiming to explore the coordinator role and how a coordinator may empower persons with dementia in decision-making processes.MethodsQualitative program evaluation combined with a hermeneutic interpretive approach was chosen as methodological approach. Sixteen dyads, consisting of the person with dementia and their main informal caregiver received the intervention by two coordinators. Of these, six dyads, three informal caregivers alone and the two care coordinators along with their leader, in sum, eighteen persons, participated in in-depth or focus group interviews, sharing their experiences after 6 months intervention.ResultsWe found that the coordinators fulfilled three functions for the participating dyads: being a safety net, meaning that the dyads might have little needs at the moment, but found safety in a relation to someone who might help if the situation should change; being a pathfinder, meaning that they supported the dyads in finding their way through the complicated system of care and support services; being a source for emotional care and support, meaning that they listened, acknowledged and gave counsel in times of distress. The coordinators emphasized that a trusting leader and work environment was crucial for them to fulfill these functions. We also found that it was challenging for the coordinators to build a relation to the persons with dementia in order to pursue genuine empowerment in decision-making processes.ConclusionWe found the framework for follow-up to be a feasible starting point for establishing empowering coordination and a sustainable care pathway for persons with dementia and their informal caregivers. More meeting points between coordinator and person with dementia should be pursued in order to fulfill the persons' fundamental rights to participate in decision-making processes.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing interest to support home-based dementia care via contactless monitoring (CM) technologies which do not require any body contact, and allow informal caregivers to remotely monitor the health and safety of people with dementia (PwD). However, sustainable implementation of CM technologies requires a better understanding of informal caregivers' acceptance. This study aimed to examine the (1) general acceptance of CM technology for home-based dementia care, (2) acceptance of different sensor types and use scenarios, and (3) differences between accepters and refusers of CM technology.MethodA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among n = 304 informal caregivers of community-dwelling PwD [Mean(SD) age = 58.5 (10.7)] in the Netherlands and Germany. The survey contained a textual and graphical introduction to CM technologies, as well as questions targeting (1) general acceptance of CM technology, (2) acceptance of seven different contactless sensor types, (3) acceptance of five different use scenarios, and (4) caregivers' own and their care recipients' personal characteristics. Data were examined using descriptive and bivariate analyses.ResultsParticipants' general acceptance of CM technology was slightly positive. We found significant differences in acceptability between contactless sensor types (p < .001). RF-based sensors (e.g., radar) and light sensors were considered most acceptable, whereas camera-based sensors and audio sensors (e.g., microphones, smart speakers) were seen as least acceptable for home-based dementia care. Furthermore, participants' acceptance of different use scenarios for CM technology varied significantly (p < .001). The intention to use CM technology was highest for detecting emergencies (e.g., falls, wandering), and lowest for predicting acute situations (e.g., fall prediction). Lastly, accepters and refusers of CM technology significantly differed regarding gender (p = .010), their relation with the PwD (p = .003), eHealth literacy (p = .025), personal innovativeness (p < .001), usage of safety technology (p = .002), and the PwD's type of cognitive impairment (p = .035) and housing situation (p = .023).ConclusionOur findings can inform the development and implementation of acceptable CM technology to support home-based dementia care. Specifically, we show which sensor types and use scenarios should be prioritized from the informal caregiver's view. Additionally, our study highlights several personal characteristics associated with informal caregivers' acceptance of CM technology that should be taken into account during implementation.