| Literature DB >> 28983262 |
Shyhrete Rexhaj1,2,3, Claude Leclerc1, Charles Bonsack2, Philippe Golay2, Jérôme Favrod2,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a new tailored intervention for informal caregivers: the Ensemble (Together) program.Entities:
Keywords: caregivers; nursing; program development; psychiatric disorders; recovery
Year: 2017 PMID: 28983262 PMCID: PMC5613087 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00178
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Ensemble program development based on a Mapping Intervention Design (MID) design (41).
| MID steps | Sources of information or activities | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Step 1: needs assessment | The new intervention should be brief, individualized, and not specific to patient’s diagnosis to ensure early access for all informal caregivers | |
| Step 2: matrices | Precise planning of project development steps. Different meetings with developers | The objectives of the |
| Step 3: program ideas | Integration of theoretical assumptions and scientific recommendations regarding the objectives of the program. The Neuman Systems Model, by Betty Neuman ( | The structure of the program was designed, and all necessary material was evaluated |
| Step 4: program components and delivery channels | Final components of the program were determined with developers and informal caregivers. Two informal caregivers tested the final version, and their recommendations were incorporated. The program was delivered by a specialist nurse | Program components were selected, and large communication efforts were performed (internet, conferences, and papers) |
| Step 5: implementation | Recruitment of the target population. Promotion of the program. Supervision of the clinical party by an expert psychiatrist | The program was conducted |
| Step 6: evaluation | Different measures were selected to assess the program’s effects on the informal caregivers: | An open pre–post within-subject comparison design was selected. The results showed an improvement in selected measures. The participants were very satisfied with the intervention quality |
Participants’ sociodemographic characteristics (N = 21).
| Age, mean (SD) | 47.52 (14.98) |
| Sex, | |
| Female | 15 (71.4) |
| Male | 6 (28.6) |
| Relationship type, | |
| Mother/father | 14 (66.7) |
| Sister/brother | 3 (14.3) |
| Wife/husband | 2 (9.5) |
| Daughter/son | 2 (9.5) |
| Completed education level, | |
| Compulsory education | 4 (19.0) |
| Apprenticeship | 4 (19.0) |
| High school graduate | 2 (9.5) |
| School profession, trade, normal, technical | 3 (14.3) |
| University | 8 (38.1) |
| Professional activity, | |
| Salaried or own employer | 15 (71.4) |
| Pensioner | 2 (9.5) |
| Unemployed | 3 (14.3) |
| Student | 1 (4.8) |
| Living under the same roof as patient, | |
| Yes | 11 (52.4) |
| No | 10 (47.6) |
| Frequency of close contacts, | |
| Daily | 13 (61.9) |
| Weekly | 7 (33.3) |
| Monthly | 1 (4.8) |
| Previously requested help, | |
| Yes | 13 (61.9) |
| No | 8 (38.1) |
| Obtained first individual help as a caregiver | |
| Yes | 21 (100) |
| No | – |
| Reason for requesting help, | |
| Participate in research | 7 (33.3) |
| Manage the caregiving role | 6 (28.6) |
| Better understand the disease | 5 (23.8) |
| Gain professional support | 2 (9.5) |
| Support patient | 1 (6.7) |
| Number of reasons for the request, | |
| One reason | 7 (33.3) |
| Several reasons | 14 (66.7) |
| Patient’s diagnosis according to the caregiver, | |
| Schizophrenia | 13 (61.9) |
| Depression | 4 (19.0) |
| Bipolar disorder | 2 (9.5) |
| Anxious disorder | 2 (9.5) |
| Duration of illness, | |
| Less than a year | 7 (33.3) |
| Between 1 and 2 years | 2 (9.5) |
| Between 3 and 10 years | 9 (42.9) |
| More than 10 years | 3 (14.3) |
Pre- and post-intervention differences in 21 informal caregivers (t-test; p-value).
| Pre-test mean (SD) | Post-test mean (SD) | Cohen’s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Severity Index | 0.72 (0.52) | 0.53 (0.58) | 0.47 | |
| Optimism | 15.52 (3.47) | 17.43 (3.95) | 0.58 | |
Participants’ satisfaction with the Ensemble program.
| Mean (SD) | Median (min–max) | |
|---|---|---|
| Fast and clear contact | 4.00 (0.00) | 4.00 (4.00–4.00) |
| Information received during the first appointment | 3.72 (0.56) | 4.00 (3.00–4.00) |
| Explanations of the research project and the intervention | 3.67 (0.48) | 4.00 (3.00–4.00) |
| The proposed intervention corresponds with my needs | 3.81 (0.40) | 4.00 (3.00–4.00) |
| The availability of the nurse corresponds with my expectations | 3.95 (0.22) | 4.00 (3.00–4.00) |
| The intervention helped me feel supported and listened to | 4.00 (0.00) | 4.00 (4.00–4.00) |
| I felt that the intervention was beneficial and comforting | 3.86 (0.36) | 4.00 (3.00–4.00) |
4, very satisfied; 3, satisfied; 2, a little satisfied; 0.1, dissatisfied.