Effect and Process Evaluation of e-Powered Parents, a Web-Based Support Program for Parents of Children With a Chronic Kidney Disease: Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

BackgroundParents of children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience high levels of stress in the daily management of their child’s illness. Parents need continuously available support and information, yet online support programs are lacking. e-Powered Parents was developed to fill this gap; it is an online program consisting of (1) medical information, (2) an interactive part, and (3) four training modules (stress management, setting limits, communication, and coping). Prior to a large-scale evaluation, we conducted a feasibility study that consisted of an effect study and a process evaluation.ObjectiveThe objectives of our study were to (1) identify the outcome measures that are most likely to capture the potential benefit, (2) evaluate the potential effectiveness and effect size, and (3) evaluate recruitment, reach, the dose received, and context.MethodsWe conducted a feasibility study with a two-armed, wait-list randomized controlled trial (RCT). Prior to baseline, parents (n=146) were randomly allocated to group 1 or group 2. After completing the baseline questionnaire, parents in group 1 were given access to e-Powered Parents, while those in group 2 received usual care. At the 6-month follow-up (T1), all parents received a questionnaire and parents in group 2 were given access to e-Powered Parents as well. After 1.5 years, through an extra measurement (T2), we evaluated the effect of long-term exposure. Outcomes were the child’s quality of life (Child Vulnerability Scale), parental stress (Pediatric Inventory for Parents) and fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), self-efficacy in communication with health care professionals (Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions, PEPPI-5), and parental perceptions of family management (Family Management Measure). Floor and ceiling effects and percentage of parents showing no change in scores were calculated. We used linear mixed models to evaluate the potential effectiveness and effect sizes using the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. In the process evaluation, we evaluated recruitment, reach, the dose received, and context using a questionnaire sent to the parents, log-in data, and a focus group interview with health care professionals.ResultsAt T1 (n=86) and T2 (n=51), no significant effects were found on any of the five outcomes. The PEPPI-5 showed ceiling effects and high percentages of parents showing no change between the measurement times. The information and interactive part of the intervention were used by 84% (57/68) of the parents in group 1 and 49% (32/65) of the parents in group 2. The information pages were visited most often. Overall, 64% (85/133) of the parents logged in to the training platform and 31% (26/85) actually used the training modules.ConclusionsWe did not observe any significant effect on any of the outcomes. This could possibly be explained by the minimal use of the intervention and by parents’ heterogeneity. For continued participation, we recommend a tailored intervention and further studies to find out...

Online psychoeducation with parent management training: Examining the contribution of peer support

“…Similar results have been seen in online psychoeducation interventions for alcohol misuse, anxiety, depression, and smoking cessation—usage analytics over a period of more than 10 years demonstrated that 90% of peer group participants lurked, rather than contributing to discussions (van Mierlo, ). Minimal participation in online psychoeducation programmes using voluntary, self‐directed peer discussion forums was also demonstrated by Cristancho‐Lacroix et al () in an investigation of Alzheimer's caregivers, by Geense et al () in an investigation of caregivers of children with chronic kidney disease, and by Steed () in an investigation of parenting attachment issues.…”

Human Connection and Technology Connectivity: A Systematic Review of Available Telehealth Survey Instruments

“…Table 2 provides a summary of respondent demographics according to telehealth survey instrument use. Telehealth survey instruments have primarily been used to assess patient experience (n=41, 91%) 23 , 24 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 with less frequent use to assess family caregiver (n=7, 16%) 28 , 34 , 37 , 40 , 65 , 66 or medical provider experience (n=8, 18%). 23 , 35 , 40 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 …”

“…Table 2 provides a summary of respondent demographics according to telehealth survey instrument use. Telehealth survey instruments have primarily been used to assess patient J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f experience (n=41, 91%) 23,24, with less frequent use to assess family caregiver (n=7, 16%) 28, 34,37,40,65,66 or medical provider experience (n=8, 18%). 23,35,40,[67][68][69][70][71] Telehealth surveys have been under-utilized to assess the experience of pediatric or adolescent cohorts with only two (4%) surveys used to assess the experience of pediatric care experiences or pediatric family caregiver experiences: TeSS for use in pediatric surgery telehealth communication 72 and TAM for pediatric telehospice care.…”

How do parents deal with their children's chronic kidney disease? A qualitative study for identifying factors related to parent's adaptation

“…Data were analyzed using MAXQDA10 software. A conventional six-step content analysis [24] was used to analyze data and including 1. reaching a general understanding by immersion and reading the transcription several times to detect primary ideas, 2. creating primary codes in the transcription by re-reading line by line, 3. searching for and determining categories and sub-categories, 4.…”