Duru Aşiret 2021.
| Study characteristics | |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT Duration of study: the study was conducted from January to November 2020. Country: Turkey Income classification: upper‐middle income country in 2020 Geographical scope: Central Anatolia Region of Turkey Healthcare setting: home (related to home care unit of a training and research hospital) |
| Participants | 1. Age: average age of the caregivers was 46.82 (SD 10.82 years); average age of the patients was 82.06 (SD 6.56 years). 2. Gender: both 3. Socioeconomic background: not specified 4. Educational background: 79.3% of caregivers were primary school graduates. Inclusion criteria—for family caregivers: a. being 18 years or older; b. taking care of their patient for at least 3 months; c. not having any problems concerning communication; d. being willing to participate in the research. Inclusion criteria—for patients: a. 65 years and older; b. had a diagnosis of intermediate or advanced stage of Alzheimers; c. had a score of 19 or below on the Standardized Mini‐Mental State Exam (MMSE); d. had been using psychotropic medication for at least 2 months if they were taking any; e. were residing within the borders of the city where the research was conducted; f. were receiving service from the home care unit. In addition, patients and caregivers without COVID‐19 were included in the study. Exclusion criteria: a. caregivers who, at the time when the research was carried out, were not residing in the central district of the city where the study was conducted; b. caregivers who refused to participate in the research. Note: at baseline, the intervention and control group scores for the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Burden of Care Score were, respectively, 29.73 (8.25) and 23.85 (9.07). Stated purpose: to determine the effect of the training conducted according to PLST (Progressively Lowered Stress Threshold Model) on the care burden, care satisfaction, and life satisfaction of the caregivers and on the neuropsychiatric symptoms and agitation level of the patients |
| Interventions |
Name: PLST Title/name of PW and number: internal medicine nurse 1. Selection: not specified 2. Educational background: master's and doctoral degrees in internal medicine nursing 3. Training: not audited training (“courses on mental health during master's and doctoral courses in internal medicine nursing” as reported by the author during contact) 4. Supervision: not specified 5. Incentives/remuneration: not specified Prevention type: indicated – participants were caregivers of people affected by Alzheimers. At baseline, they had some level of distress as indicated by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Burden of Care scores. Intervention details: the PLST model provides a conceptual basis for the effects of stress for a patient with dementia and the accompanying temporary agitation; it was developed by Hall and Buckwalter. PLST interventions basically include training the caregiver by making an appropriate care plan for the patient. Within the scope of the research, three home visits were made to the caregivers in the intervention group. Control: other (caregivers received educational materials prepared by the researchers on the care of Alzheimer’s patients and solving caregivers’ problems during home visits) |
| Outcomes |
Participants’outcomes of interest for this review
Carers’ outcomes of interest for this review Nil Economic outcomes Nil Time points: baseline, post‐intervention (1‐6 months) |
| Notes |
Source of funding: Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Aksaray University Notes on validation of instruments (screening and outcomes): for the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, “the validity and reliability study for the Turkish version was done by Akça Kalem 2005 and the Cronbach’s alpha value was found to be 0.79.23 The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.7”. For the LSS, “the scale was adapted to Turkish by Köker in 1991, who reported it demonstrated good test–retest reliability, and had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.71.29. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale in this study was 0.97”. Additional information: none Handling the data: not applicable Prospective trial registration number: not reported |