ArticlePloS one2023
Feasibility, acceptability and potential helpfulness of the PROACTIVE intervention in Flanders, Belgium: A survey study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThis study aimed to explore the feasibility of a Flemish adaptation of the New York University Caregiver Intervention (i.e., PROACTIVE intervention) modifying the recruitment and intervention content for informal caregivers of people with early cognitive decline, and across different subgroups. A feasibility study is necessary in order to reduce research waste for intervention adaptation and evaluation.
methodsResearchers constructed, tested, and sent out a survey consisting of 43 questions on the following topics: awareness of symptoms of early cognitive decline, levels of cognitive performance using the updated Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS2), acceptability, and potential helpfulness of the intervention, and sociodemographic characteristics. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression with SAS 9.4©. Qualitative data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis.
resultsA total of 463 informal caregivers completed the survey (mean age 58.8 ± 11.8, 83.6% female). Among them, 230 respondents who cared for people with cognitive decline indicated they would probably or certainly participate in the study. Identified factors influencing the recruitment were cognition, co-habitation, education, and employment status. Over half of the target caregivers indicated almost all services from the intervention could satisfy their needs. A majority perceived the PROACTIVE intervention would be helpful (69.4%), especially the CPS2 = 3 (76.1%) and CPS2 = 4 (74.1%) subgroups.
conclusionThe recruitment of target participants for a subsequent RCT evaluation study is feasible, and identified associated factors should be considered during the recruitment process. The PROACTIVE intervention and core components except 'peer-group participation' were perceived as helpful by most caregivers. The CPS2 = 3-4 subgroups were most accepting of the intervention and were most likely to benefit from the intervention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.