| Literature DB >> 31202270 |
Jessica de Wit1, Sigrid C J M Vervoort2, Eefke van Eerden1, Leonard H van den Berg3, Johanna M A Visser-Meily4,5, Anita Beelen1, Carin D Schröder1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Partners are often the main caregivers in the care for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and progressive muscular atrophy (PMA). Providing care during the progressive and fatal disease course of these patients is challenging and many caregivers experience feelings of distress. A blended psychosocial support program based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy was developed to support partners of patients with ALS and PMA. The aim of this qualitative study is to gather insight into experiences with different components of the support program (program evaluation) and to discover what caregivers gained from following the program (mechanisms of impact).Entities:
Keywords: Acceptance and commitment therapy; Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); Caregivers; Progressive muscular atrophy (PMA); Psychological distress; Qualitative research
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31202270 PMCID: PMC6570885 DOI: 10.1186/s40359-019-0308-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychol ISSN: 2050-7283
Content of each online module
| Components | |
|---|---|
• Information directed at the theme of the module with psychological exercises based on ACT | |
• Listening exercises to train conscious awareness and attention from one moment to the next moment | |
• A list of relevant websites, organizations and other sources of information and support associated with the theme of the module | |
• 1. Sending private messages using a personal profile 2. Sharing tips and advice with regard to the topic of the module with fellow participants via a forum | |
• After finishing a module, the participant receives feedback on the completed exercises, a reflection on the progress and a reaction to any questions or difficulties via a text message |
Abbreviation: ACT Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
Phases of thematic analysis according to Braun and Clarke
| Phase | Description of process and role of authors |
|---|---|
| 1. Familiarizing with the data | Interviews were transcribed verbatim and the accuracy of transcripts was checked by comparing the audio recordings with the transcripts (JW, EE). Transcripts were read and re-read by three authors (JW, EE, SV) and memos of initial ideas about themes and refinement of the interview guide were made and discussed (JW, EE, SV, CS). The authors had different professional backgrounds; i.a. psychology, nursing science and health sciences. |
| 2. Generating initial codes | Transcripts were broken down into fragments based on content, and these fragments were labelled with codes by researchers independently (JW, EE). After every three interviews, results of their coding were compared and discrepancies discussed leading to consensus. A third researcher, who is an expert in qualitative research (SV), coded seven interviews. Results of the codes were discussed during meetings in which the researchers worked towards consensus about the coding and interpretations of the data (JW, EE, SV, CS).This approach established researchers’ triangulation and increased the depth and credibility of the analysis. |
| 3. Searching for themes | Codes were collated into potential themes whose relevance emerged across the interviews (JW, EE). A potential description of the main and subthemes was made. Potential themes were discussed in joint meetings (JW, EE, SV, CS). |
| 4. Reviewing themes | Potential themes were reviewed for consistency with the codes and entire data to ensure they reflected the entire dataset (JW, EE). Inconsistencies were discussed and potential themes were further refined (JW, EE, SV, CS). |
| 5. Defining and naming themes | The specific content of each theme was further worked out using the transcripts, and themes were named and defined (JW, EE, SV, CS). |
| 6. Producing the report | Two researchers (JW, EE) wrote a first draft of the scientific report and selected quotes to illustrate themes. Two authors reviewed the report (CS, SV) and adjustments were made. This process was repeated until consensus was reached. The report was sent to the other members of the research team (AB, LB, JV) for critical assessment, and their feedback was processed. |
Characteristics of interviewed partners
| Completers ( | Drop outs ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender, | ||
| Female | 12 (70.6) | 3 (50.0) |
| Male | 5 (29.4) | 3 (50.0) |
| Age in years, mean (SD) | 59.9 (10.9) | 58.7 (13.4) |
| Education level, | ||
| Low | 1 (6.0) | – |
| Medium | 8 (47.0) | 3 (50.0) |
| High | 8 (47.0) | 3 (50.0) |
| Diagnosis partner, | ||
| ALS | 13 (76.5) | 3 (50.0) |
| PMA | 4 (23.5) | 3 (50.0) |
| Time since diagnosis in months, median (range) | 33 (9–253) | 35 (12–82) |
| Parameters patient | ||
| ALSFRS-R, median (range) | 25 (4–44) | 24 (5–34) |
| ALS-FTD-Q, median (range) | 11 (0–38) | 15.5 (8–33) |
Educational level: low = did not complete secondary school-completed low level secondary school; medium = completed medium level secondary school; high = completed upper level secondary school and/or university degree
Abbreviations: ALS-FRS-R, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised; ALS-FTD-Q, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Fronto Temporal Dementia-Questionnaire
Fig. 1Overview themes and subthemes Mechanisms of impact