CARES ^® Dementia Care for Families™: Effects of Online, Psychoeducational Training on Knowledge of Person-Centered Care and Satisfaction

Abstract

Challenges to intervention use among family caregivers of individuals with dementia include availability and timing of delivery. The current study sought to determine whether an online, psychoeducational intervention for dementia family caregivers, CARES® Dementia Care for Families™ (CARES for Families), improved and enhanced dementia caregivers’ knowledge of person-centered care approaches. Forty-one family members completed pre- and posttest surveys that assessed improvement in dementia care knowledge, and multiple close- and open-ended items examined how the CARES for Families online modules benefited users at posttest. A paired t test demonstrated a significant and considerable increase in dementia care knowledge among family caregivers (p < 0.001); caregivers also indicated that CARES for Families’ content, flexibility, and use of actual family caregivers and individuals with dementia in video care vignettes were strengths. The findings suggest that CARES for Families can offer an efficient supplement to holistic dementia care that gerontological nurses provide.

What is known from the existing literature about peer support interventions for carers of individuals living with dementia: A scoping review

“…In total 28 original studies were identified that tested an intervention comprising solely of peer support or had a peer support component. We examined the extent, nature and distribution of the studies included in this review and determined the following: the majority of studies ( n = 12) used a trial design including randomised controlled trials, pragmatic randomised trials, randomised controlled evaluations, randomised controlled two group design or randomised pilot studies (Charlesworth et al, ; Finkel et al, ; Gaugler et al, , , , ; Gaugler, Reese, Reese, & Mittelman, ; Hayden, Glynn, Hahn, Randall, & Randolph, ; Laakkonen et al, , ; Lai et al, ; Martindale‐Adams, Nichols, Burns, Graney, & Zuber, ; Mittelman et al, ; Núñez‐Naveira et al, ; Torkamani et al, ; Wai Tong & Lee, ; Wang & Chien, ; Wang et al, ; Winter & Gitlin, ), eight studies used a pre/post‐test design (Boots, de Vugt, Withagen, Kempen, & Verhey, ; Chenoweth et al, ; Chu et al, ; Dam, van Boxtel, Rozendaal, Verhey, & de Vugt, ; Gaugler, Hobday, et al, ; Hsu et al, ; Javadpour, Ahmadzadeh, & Bahredar, ; O'Connor, Arizmendi, & Kaszniak, ), four a quasi‐experimental design (Andren & Elmståhl, , ; Easom, Alston, & Coleman, ; Marziali & Garcia, ; Pagán‐Ortiz, Cortés, Rudloff, Weitzman, & Levkoff, ), two a quasi‐experiment with mixed methods design (Baily, Kingsyon, Alford, Taylor, & Tolhurst, ; Küçükgüçlü, Akpınar Söylemez, Yener, & Işık, ) and the final two studies used mixed methods (Hattink, Droes, Sikkes, Oostra, & Lemstra, ; McKechnie, Barker, & Stott, ).…”

“…Carers Assessment of Satisfaction Index (CASI) (Nolan, Grant, & Keady, 1996) ‐ (1) Carers of Older People in Europe Index (COPE index)/ subscale Positive Aspects of Caring (PAC) (McKee et al, 2003)‐ (1) Personal Growth Index (PGI) (Ryff & Keyes, 1995)‐ (1) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985)‐ (1) Satisfaction items – likert scale (J. E. Gaugler, Hobday, et al, ) ‐ (1)…”

“…Results demonstrate that it is difficult to deduce if or what components may or may not be effective for dementia carers, with results providing a very mixed landscape in relation to the effectiveness of the differing interventions or corresponding mode of delivery. Overall, of the 36 identified research papers, ten papers reported the assessment of a psychological outcome, however, there is limited evidence on psychological wellbeing impact as significant improvement was reported in only two of these studies (Boots et al, ; Marziali & Garcia, ) both of which were online interventions; 30 research papers reported on feelings of burden/anxiety/depression of these 19 stated a significant improvement (Andren & Elmståhl, ; Chenoweth et al, ; Chu et al, ; Easom et al, ; Finkel et al, ; Gaugler, Reese, et al, ; Gaugler et al, , , ; Hsu et al, ; Javadpour et al, ; Küçükgüçlü et al, ; Marziali & Garcia, ; Núñez‐Naveira et al, ; Torkamani et al, ; Wai Tong & Lee, ; Wang & Chien, ; Wang et al, ; Winter & Gitlin, ); 20 papers provided findings from the assessment of health and well‐being, of these 11 had significant findings (Easom et al, ; Gaugler, Reese, et al, ; Hsu et al, ; Javadpour et al, ; Laakkonen et al, ; Marziali & Garcia, ; Mittelman et al, ; Torkamani et al, ; Wai Tong & Lee, ; Wang & Chien, ; Wang et al, ); six papers reported findings linked to carer satisfaction of which two produced significant findings (Andren & Elmståhl, ; Gaugler, Hobday, et al, ). Finally, 13 papers stated the findings from the assessed level of support, of these five reported significant improvement (Dam et al, ; Gaugler, Reese, et al, ; Marziali & Garcia, ; Wai Tong & Lee, ; Wang et al, ) (Figure ).…”

“…Across the 36 research papers 14 ( n = 10 face‐to‐face; n = 4 online) reported significant findings across all of their identified outcomes (Boots et al, ; Chu et al, ; Easom et al, ; Gaugler, Hobday, et al, ; Gaugler, Reese, et al, ; Gaugler et al, , ; Hsu et al, ; Javadpour et al, ; Küçükgüçlü et al, ; Marziali & Garcia, ; Torkamani et al, ; Wai Tong & Lee, ; Wang et al, ), and all contained multi‐component interventions. Ten papers ( n = 8 face‐to‐face, n = 2 online) demonstrated significant effectiveness across some of their outcomes (Andren & Elmståhl, ; Chenoweth et al, ; Dam et al, ; Finkel et al, ; Gaugler et al, ; Laakkonen et al, ; Mittelman et al, ; Núñez‐Naveira et al, ; Wang & Chien, ; Winter & Gitlin, ) and 10 did not identify any significant effectiveness across any outcomes ( n = 6 face‐to‐face; n = 4 online) (Andren & Elmståhl, ; Baily et al, ; Charlesworth et al, ; Gaugler et al, ; Laakkonen et al, ; Lai et al, ; Martindale‐Adams et al, ; McKechnie et al, ; O'Connor et al, ; Pagán‐Ortiz et al, ).…”

Distinguishing Between Knowledge Gaps And Misconceptions Of Alzheimer’s Disease Among Caregivers In The UK

“…So far, the questionnaire has been used to assess knowledge in the general population or among students (UK [12]; Norway [13]; USA [14,15,16]; South Korea [17] among health professionals and care staff [18], among psychologists [19] and it has been used as an outcome measure for validation of an online training program for care-workers [20].…”