Attention control in a trial of an online psychoeducational intervention for caregivers

Abstract

In reports of randomized controlled trials, thorough description of the attention control condition has been recommended, yet is frequently lacking. The Tele-Savvy Caregiver program for informal caregivers of persons living with dementia was tested in a randomized controlled trial with an attention control condition.The purpose of this trial was to test Tele-Savvy's efficacy in reducing the negative effects of caregiving on caregivers, promoting quality of life for persons living with dementia, and improving caregiver mastery. We describe the design and implementation of and examine the outcomes associated with the attention control condition. Caregivers were randomized to the immediate Tele-Savvy (active condition), Healthy Living (attention control), or waitlist. The attention control content was focused on healthy lifestyle and was not intended to affect the outcomes that Tele-Savvy targeted. The attention control group was similar to Tele-Savvy in the intervention structure and duration: it consisted of seven weekly group videoconferences and 36 video lessons. Data on outcomes of caregivers and persons living with dementia were collected at baseline and 3 and 6 months postbaseline.Multilevel mixed effects models were used to determine changes in the outcomes.One hundred and eleven caregivers were randomized to the attention control condition (attrition 21.6%). Eighteen formative assessment interviews focusing on caregivers' experience in the attention control condition were conducted. The attention control condition completers had no statistically significant changes in the variables that Tele-Savvy targeted. These results may be used in the design and implementation of attention control conditions in behavioral intervention research.

Feasibility, usability, and acceptability of psychoeducational videoconferencing interventions for informal caregivers: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

“…Declining patient health and time constraints were reasons for intervention withdrawal and/or nonadherence Milbury, Weathers, et al, 2020;Porter et al, 2017;Zarei et al, 2022). However, interventions with higher adherence had short and regular weekly or bi-weekly sessions (Bannon et al, 2020;Hepburn et al, 2022;Kovaleva et al, 2022;Milbury, Weathers, et al, 2020;Porter et al, 2017).…”

“…Therefore, data on feasibility, usability, and acceptability were not duplicated within this review. Four RCTs contain two psychoeducational videoconferencing interventions (Czaja et al, 2013;Milbury, Weathers, et al, 2020;Porter et al, 2017;Vranceanu et al, 2020) while 10 contain one (Badger et al, 2013;Bannon et al, 2020;Carmack et al, 2021;Douglas et al, 2021;Dowling et al, 2014;Hepburn et al, 2022;Kovaleva et al, 2022;Laver et al, 2020;Zarei et al, 2022), indicating a total of 18 interventions within this review. Bannon et al (2020) and Vranceanu et al (2020) recruited caregivers from intensive care units.…”

“…There are three videoconferencing only caregiver group interventions targeting caregivers of dementia patients (Hepburn et al, 2022;Kovaleva et al, 2022;Zarei et al, 2022). These interventions focused on healthy living (Kovaleva et al, 2022), caregiving skills and utilizing community resources (Hepburn et al, 2022), and mindfulness (Zarei et al, 2022). Hepburn et al…”

“…Technical difficulties, such as persistent frozen images, poor connection, and echoing audio, in rural areas were the main reasons for dissatisfaction. Other studies recruiting rural caregivers did not report usability findings (Hepburn et al, 2022;Kovaleva et al, 2022).…”

“…Other group interventions did not provide information regarding caregivers' satisfaction with the intervention structure (Hepburn et al, 2022;Kovaleva et al, 2022). Three studies with dyadic interventions found that caregivers either did not have a preference or preferred videoconferencing Milbury, Weathers, et al, 2020;Porter et al, 2017).…”