| Literature DB >> 34616957 |
Esther Oi Wah Chow1, Sai-Fu Fung1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We developed a new group practice using strength- and meaning-based narrative therapy (NT) for older Chinese living in Hong Kong (HK), to enhance their life wisdom. This paper reports on the intervention and its short- and longer-term effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized waitlist-controlled trial was conducted. A total of 157 older adults were randomly recruited, of whom 75 were randomly assigned to the intervention group which received four 2-hr biweekly NT sessions using the "Tree of Life" metaphor. The others were placed on a waitlist. Perceived wisdom was assessed using the Brief Self-Assessed Wisdom Scale. Assessment occurred at baseline (T0), end of treatment (T1), and 4 (T2) and 8 months later (T3). Overtime effects of NT on wisdom scores were assessed using latent growth curve models with time-invariant covariates for impact.Entities:
Keywords: Latent growth curve models; Narrative therapy; Randomized controlled trial; Tree of Life; Wisdom
Year: 2021 PMID: 34616957 PMCID: PMC8489428 DOI: 10.1093/geroni/igab027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Innov Aging ISSN: 2399-5300
Figure 1.CONSORT table of the study. NT = narrative therapy.
Participant Demographic Characteristics
| Variables | NT group ( | Control group ( | Overall ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ( | 73.12 (9.12) | 71.99 (7.90) | 72.6 (8.55) |
| Gender, | |||
| Male | 21 (25.6%) | 19 (25.3%) | 40 (25.5%) |
| Female | 61 (74.4%) | 59 (74.7%) | 117 (74.5%) |
| Education level, | |||
| No formal education | 14 (17.1%) | 12 (16.0%) | 26 (16.6%) |
| Primary education | 23 (28.0%) | 27 (36.0%) | 50 (31.8%) |
| Secondary education | 28 (34.1%) | 17 (22.7%) | 45 (28.7%) |
| Tertiary education | 16 (19.5%) | 14 (18.7%) | 30 (19.1%) |
| Missing | 1 (1.2%) | 5 (6.7%) | 6 (3.8%) |
| Marital status, | |||
| Single | 9 (11.0%) | 6 (8.0%) | 15 (9.6%) |
| Married | 35 (42.7%) | 29 (38.7%) | 64 (40.8%) |
| Divorce/separated | 8 (9.8%) | 7 (9.3%) | 15 (9.6%) |
| Widowed | 29 (35.4%) | 33 (44.0%) | 62 (39.5%) |
| Other | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) |
Notes: NT = narrative therapy; SD = standard deviation.
Mean Differences Between Intervention and Control Group by Outcome Measures
| Time intervals | Wisdom scores | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | Experimental group ( | All ( | |
| Baseline (T0) | 35.17 (9.66) ( | 35.85 (8.69) ( | 35.53 (9.13) ( |
| Baseline plus 2 months (T1) | 35.69 (8.97) ( | 37.51 (7.86) ( | 36.61 (8.45) ( |
| Baseline plus 4 months (T2) | 35.90 (8.67) ( | 39.49 (6.08) ( | 37.70 (7.66) ( |
| Baseline plus 8 months (T3) | 36.50 (10.47) ( | 39.06 (7.22) ( | 37.78 (9.04) ( |
Note: SD = standard deviation.
Results for Unconditional and Conditional Latent Growth Curve Models for Impact of Narrative Therapy on Wisdom Scores
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means or intercepts | ||||
| | 36.119* | 35.502* | 43.887* | 43.811* |
| | 0.760* | 0.432 | −1.979 | −1.949 |
| Variance residual variance, and covariance | ||||
| | 42.683* | 42.274 | 39.606* | 39.595* |
| | 0.895 | 0.746 | 1.135 | 1.197 |
| Covariance of | −0.844 | −0.982 | −1.728 | −1.736 |
| Covariate regressions | ||||
| | ||||
| Age at baseline | −0.183 | −0.182 | ||
| Gender (female vs male) | 0.683 | 0.683 | ||
| Education level | 1.462 | 1.458 | ||
| Group (control vs experimental) | 1.194 | 1.355 | ||
| | ||||
| Age at baseline | 0.033 | 0.033 | ||
| Gender (female vs male) | −0.126 | −0.127 | ||
| Education level | 0.095 | 0.094 | ||
| Group (control vs experimental) | 0.644 | 0.602 | ||
| T0 BSAW * group (control vs experimental) | 1.185 | |||
| T1 BSAW * group (control vs experimental) | 1.446 | |||
| T2 BSAW * group (control vs experimental) | 3.250* | |||
| T3 BSAW * group (control vs experimental) | 2.366 | |||
| Model fit statistics | ||||
| Model chi-square | 9.819 | 11.223 | 20.063 | 17.306 |
| Degree of freedom | 5 | 7 | 13 | 11 |
| CFI | 0.969 | 0.973 | 0.956 | 0.960 |
| RMSEA [90% CI] | 0.101 [0.000–0.194] | 0.080 [0.000–0.162] | 0.077 [0.000–0.140] | 0.079 [0.000–0.147] |
| SRMR | 0.049 | 0.044 | 0.047 | 0.045 |
|
| 95 | 95 | 92 | 92 |
Notes: BSAW = Brief Self-Assessed Wisdom; CFI = comparative fit index; CI = confidence interval; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. All covariates are mean-centered.
*p < .05.