Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41942929›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2026

Co-designing a psychoeducational intervention for FCs of institutionalized older adults : a participatory double diamond approach.

Souad Meziane-Damnée, Anne-Sophie Rigaud, Catherine Bayle, Matthieu Piccoli, Lauriane Blavette, Sébastien Dacunha, Hermine Lenoir, Maribel Pino

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05651555 (Evaluation of the EHPAD Caregiver/Pact & Pad Psycho-educational Program for Caregivers With an Institutionalized Parent), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05651555 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of the EHPAD Caregiver/Pact & Pad Psycho-educational Program for Caregivers With an Institutionalized Parent

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisRan2023 to 2025Enrolled73ConditionsCaregiversArmsPsycho-educational program EHPAD caregivers / Pact & Pad for caregivers with a parent in an institution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Souad Meziane-DamnéeUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France.
Anne-Sophie RigaudUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France. anne-sophie.rigaud@aphp.fr.
Catherine BayleService Gériatrie 1&2, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et Recherches Ile de France, AP-HP, Paris, Paris, F-75013, France.
Matthieu PiccoliUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France.
Lauriane BlavetteUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France.
Sébastien DacunhaUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France.
Hermine LenoirUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France.
Maribel PinoUniversité Paris Cité, INSERM UMR-S 1144, OTEN, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe transition of a relative with dementia into long-term care is a critical and emotionally charged period for family caregivers, often marked by guilt, loss of role, and strained relationships with care teams. While psychosocial interventions can mitigate these challenges, few are co-designed with both caregivers and professionals to ensure contextual relevance.

methodsUsing the Double Diamond design framework, we conducted a four-phase co-design process in geriatric institutions in Île-de-France: Discover (inductive analysis of 14 interviews with family caregivers within 6 months of admission), Define (deductive validation and prioritisation of needs through focus groups with caregivers and professionals), Develop (collaborative design of a psychoeducational intervention), and Deliver (pilot testing with eight family caregivers and six professionals, followed by focus group feedback). Analyses alternated inductive and deductive approaches according to phase objectives.

resultsThe needs assessment identified ten thematic domains, including emotional ambivalence, redefinition of the caregiving role, communication breakdowns, and support gaps. These informed the creation of a seven-session group programme with two individual sessions, addressing dementia knowledge, role adaptation, communication skills, nutrition, and end-of-life planning. In the pilot phase, feasibility was high, with no dropouts and sessions deemed appropriate in number, duration, and content. Acceptability was strong, although the end-of-life module was emotionally challenging. Caregivers reported improved understanding of institutional care, enhanced communication with staff, reduced anxiety, and strengthened peer support. Professionals noted improved relationships with families and reduced conflict over day-to-day care issues. Feedback led to refinements, including short summary videos for each session, reorganisation of sensitive modules, and integration of practical communication tools in the final session.

conclusionsThis co-designed psychoeducational intervention addresses a critical gap in supporting family caregivers during the transition to institutional dementia care. Grounded in lived experiences and professional insights, it demonstrates high feasibility and acceptability, with promising benefits for caregiver well-being and family–staff collaboration. An efficacy trial is warranted to assess its impact on caregiver outcomes and institutional climate.

trial registrationNCT05651555.

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaInstitutionalizationAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePilot ProjectsDementiaFamily caregiversGeriatric careInstitutionalizationParticipatory designPsychoeducational interventionQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID41942929
PMCPMC13188782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.