Systematic approaches are essential when adapting interventions, so the adapted intervention is feasible, acceptable, and holds promise for positive outcomes in the new target population and/or setting. Qualitative research is critical to this process. The purpose of this article is to provide an example of how qualitative research was used to guide the adaptation a web-based intervention for family carers of persons with dementia residing in long-term care (LTC) and to discuss challenges associated with using qualitative methodologies in this regard. Four steps are outlined: (a) choosing an intervention to adapt, (b) validating the conceptual framework of the intervention, (c) revising the intervention, and (d) conducting a feasibility study. Challenges with respect to decontextualization and subjective reality are discussed, with suggestions provided on how to overcome them. The result of this process was a feasible and acceptable web-based intervention to support family carers of persons with dementia residing in LTC.

Aims To identify factors associated with hope in family carers of persons living with chronic illness. Design A systematic review of quantitative and mixed method studies on hope in carers of persons living with chronic illness. Data Sources Five electronic databases (Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to 13 July 2020. Review Methods Inclusion criteria were the following: (a) study population of adult (18 years of age and older) carers of persons living with chronic illness, (b) hope was measured as a variable, (c) reported factors associated with hope, (d) employed either quantitative or mixed methods design, (e) written in English and (f) was published in peer reviewed journals. All included studies were evaluated for quality using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Results Twenty‐six studies were included in the systematic review. Quality of life, physical and mental health, life satisfaction and the hope of care recipients were found to be positively associated with hope. Carer's coping increased (self‐efficacy and caregiver preparedness) as hope increased with a decrease in maladaptive coping strategies. Anxiety, depression, distress, grief and guilt were negatively associated with carers’ hope. Carers’ hope did not appear to be associated with carer or care–recipient demographic variables. Conclusion Carers’ hope appears to be associated with the carers’ over all positive health. The factors associated with carers’ hope provide potential areas to focus intervention development such as strategies that increase self‐efficacy. More research is needed to clarify if factors such as stage of disease and resilience are associated with hope. Research on carers’ hope assessment and intervention development should also focus on factors associated with hope. Impact The findings underscore the need to assess and work with carers of persons living with chronic illness to enhance their hope.

No abstract

Our study aimed to explore how perceived baseline contact may influence acceptability of Connecting Today, a personal contact intervention, among people living with dementia. We aimed to generate hypotheses for testing in future studies. This was a sub-group analysis of pilot study data. Fifteen people living with mild to moderate dementia participated in Connecting Today. We explored how perceptions of intervention acceptability may differ in groups reporting weekly contact (n = 8) compared with groups reporting monthly/unknown (n = 7) contact at baseline. Measures of acceptability included a treatment perceptions and preferences questionnaire, and the number of and reasons for non-consent, missing data, and study withdrawal. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis. In visits one and two, a larger proportion (85.7–100%) of low baseline contact participants reported feeling better, and indicated that the visits helped them and were easy “mostly” or “a lot”, compared with the high baseline contact group (37.5–62.5%). Most missing data (71%) and all study withdrawals occurred in the high baseline contact group. Scheduled in-person visits with family, friends, or a volunteer may appeal to residents in care homes who have few existing opportunities for routine, one-on-one visits with others. Hypotheses generated should be tested in future studies.

Background: Living with dementia can be a lonely experience, undermining older adults’ quality of life. Evidence supports that personal contact interventions can address older adults’ loneliness. However, effects have been small to date, and little is known about how one’s perceptions of baseline contact may influence an intervention’s use and effects. The purpose of this study was to explore how baseline contact, as perceived by older adults living with dementia, may be associated with the acceptability of a personal contact intervention. Methods: This descriptive study was a secondary analysis of data that we collected from 15 people living with mild to moderate dementia in a long-term care home who participated in Connecting Today. Connecting Today is a personal contact intervention that involves 30 minutes of scheduled, unscripted interaction between persons living with dementia and a family member, friend or research assistant. Visits occurred for six weeks, face-to-face or by phone. We compared groups that perceived that they had high (i.e., weekly, n=8) versus low (i.e., monthly or unknown, n=7) contact at baseline to explore differences in acceptability. We measured perceived acceptability (adapted Treatment Perception and Preferences Questionnaire) and the amount and reasons reported for missing data and study withdrawal. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and proportions and frequencies were compared in tables and charts to explore differences between groups.Results: In visits one and two when there were little missing data, a larger proportion (85.7% to 100%) of low contact participants reported feeling better, that the visits helped them, and that the visits were easy ‘mostly’ or ‘a lot’, as compared to the high contact group (37.5% to 62.5%). Retention and attrition after visit two further supported that Connecting Today may be more acceptable for people with low perceived baseline contact: the majority of missing data (71%) and all study withdrawals were observed in the high contact group. Conclusions: Testing the hypotheses generated in this study about the influence of perceived baseline contact upon acceptability in larger feasibility and effectiveness studies will support development of tailored, theory-based personal contact interventions.