Acceptability of a Personal Contact Intervention among People Living with Dementia: Might Baseline Contact Matter?

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GERONTOLOGY
Danielle Thibault, Tynisha D Whynot, Jennifer Swindle, Heunjung Lee, Hannah M O'Rourke
{"title":"Acceptability of a Personal Contact Intervention among People Living with Dementia: Might Baseline Contact Matter?","authors":"Danielle Thibault, Tynisha D Whynot, Jennifer Swindle, Heunjung Lee, Hannah M O'Rourke","doi":"10.1017/S071498082300034X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Our study aimed to explore how perceived baseline contact may influence acceptability of Connecting Today, a personal contact intervention, among people living with dementia. We aimed to generate hypotheses for testing in future studies. This was a sub-group analysis of pilot study data. Fifteen people living with mild to moderate dementia participated in Connecting Today. We explored how perceptions of intervention acceptability may differ in groups reporting weekly contact (n = 8) compared with groups reporting monthly/unknown (n = 7) contact at baseline. Measures of acceptability included a treatment perceptions and preferences questionnaire, and the number of and reasons for non-consent, missing data, and study withdrawal. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis. In visits one and two, a larger proportion (85.7–100%) of low baseline contact participants reported feeling better, and indicated that the visits helped them and were easy “mostly” or “a lot”, compared with the high baseline contact group (37.5–62.5%). Most missing data (71%) and all study withdrawals occurred in the high baseline contact group. Scheduled in-person visits with family, friends, or a volunteer may appeal to residents in care homes who have few existing opportunities for routine, one-on-one visits with others. Hypotheses generated should be tested in future studies.","PeriodicalId":47613,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal on Aging-Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement","volume":" ","pages":"761-770"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal on Aging-Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S071498082300034X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Our study aimed to explore how perceived baseline contact may influence acceptability of Connecting Today, a personal contact intervention, among people living with dementia. We aimed to generate hypotheses for testing in future studies. This was a sub-group analysis of pilot study data. Fifteen people living with mild to moderate dementia participated in Connecting Today. We explored how perceptions of intervention acceptability may differ in groups reporting weekly contact (n = 8) compared with groups reporting monthly/unknown (n = 7) contact at baseline. Measures of acceptability included a treatment perceptions and preferences questionnaire, and the number of and reasons for non-consent, missing data, and study withdrawal. We used descriptive statistics and content analysis. In visits one and two, a larger proportion (85.7–100%) of low baseline contact participants reported feeling better, and indicated that the visits helped them and were easy “mostly” or “a lot”, compared with the high baseline contact group (37.5–62.5%). Most missing data (71%) and all study withdrawals occurred in the high baseline contact group. Scheduled in-person visits with family, friends, or a volunteer may appeal to residents in care homes who have few existing opportunities for routine, one-on-one visits with others. Hypotheses generated should be tested in future studies.
痴呆症患者个人接触干预的可接受性:基线接触是否重要?
我们的研究旨在探索感知的基线接触如何影响痴呆症患者对“今日连接”(一种个人接触干预)的可接受性。我们的目的是生成假设,以便在未来的研究中进行测试。这是对试点研究数据的分组分析。15名轻度至中度痴呆症患者参加了“今日连线”活动。我们探讨了报告每周接触(n=8)的组与报告基线时每月/未知接触(n=7)的组对干预可接受性的看法有何不同。可接受性的衡量标准包括治疗认知和偏好问卷,以及不同意、数据缺失和退出研究的数量和原因。我们使用描述性统计和内容分析。在第一次和第二次访视中,与高基线接触组(37.5-62.5%)相比,更大比例(85.7-100%)的低基线接触参与者报告感觉更好,并表示访视对他们有帮助,而且“大部分”或“很多”都很容易。大多数缺失数据(71%)和所有研究退出都发生在高基线接触小组。与家人、朋友或志愿者安排的面对面探访可能会吸引那些几乎没有机会与他人进行常规一对一探访的养老院居民。所产生的假设应在未来的研究中进行测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement (CJA/RCV) promotes excellence in research and disseminates the latest work of researchers in the social sciences, humanities, health and biological sciences who study the older population of Canada and other countries; informs policy debates relevant to aging through the publication of the highest quality research; seeks to improve the quality of life for Canada"s older population and for older populations in other parts of the world through the publication of research that focuses on the broad range of relevant issues from income security to family relationships to service delivery and best practices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信