Outcomes of Interventions for Alzheimer’s Family Caregivers in Mexico

Abstract

The study examines which of three interventions of cognitive conduct, laughter, or a mixed intervention including both cognitive conduct and laughter components, is more effective for improvement of attitudes toward care and reduction of anxiety among female Mexican caregivers of family members with Alzheimer's disease. A repeated measures quasi-experimental design with four groups, three experimental and a control group, was used. All intervention groups received cognitive conduct, laughter, or a mixed intervention weekly for 8 weeks. The control group received information about home accident prevention. Outcome measurements were performed at baseline, Week 4, end of the intervention (Week 8), and 4 weeks following the intervention completion. A repeated measures ANOVA was used for each outcome variable and the Tukey's post hoc analysis to determine group differences. Results suggest that the cognitive conduct component significantly improved positive attitudes toward care and reduced anxiety both at the end of the intervention and at follow-up.

Psychological interventions for carers of people with dementia: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

“…As reveals, there are eight studies that met the criteria for this category (including one qualitative). The backgrounds of those delivering the study interventions included a master's degree mental health nursing student (Chu, Yang, Liao, Chang, Chen, Lin, & Chou, ), Master's level research associates (Stern et al, ), nurses (Ulstein, Sandvik, Wyller, & Engedal, ; Villareal‐Reyna, Salazar‐González, Cruz‐Quevedo, Carrillo‐Cervantes, & Champion, ), group leaders with extensive experience and training in group counselling and support work (Chu et al, ), Bachelor's level staff with experience in gerontology, psychology/social work graduate students, and professional psychologists and social workers (Rabinowitz, Mausbach, Coon, Depp, Thompson, & Gallagher‐Thompson, ).…”

“…The quality of the quantitative studies in this category is mixed. Some of the studies specifically address some, or all, of the following: training, treatment protocols, manuals, and adhering to treatment fidelity (Chu et al, ; Rabinowitz et al, ; Ulstein et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ). About half of the studies in this category not only make it clear for the reader to see which psychological models have informed the study intervention, but it is also clear for the reader to understand the ways in which the models underpin the work (Hepburn et al, ; Rabinowitz et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ).…”

“…Some of the studies specifically address some, or all, of the following: training, treatment protocols, manuals, and adhering to treatment fidelity (Chu et al, ; Rabinowitz et al, ; Ulstein et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ). About half of the studies in this category not only make it clear for the reader to see which psychological models have informed the study intervention, but it is also clear for the reader to understand the ways in which the models underpin the work (Hepburn et al, ; Rabinowitz et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ). All of the studies discuss their work in relation to clinical practice, some in particular detail (Chu et al, ; Hepburn et al, ; Stern et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ), and all studies discuss the populations which participants were drawn from, which helps readers to make inferences and plan future studies.…”

“…About half of the studies in this category not only make it clear for the reader to see which psychological models have informed the study intervention, but it is also clear for the reader to understand the ways in which the models underpin the work (Hepburn et al, ; Rabinowitz et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ). All of the studies discuss their work in relation to clinical practice, some in particular detail (Chu et al, ; Hepburn et al, ; Stern et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ), and all studies discuss the populations which participants were drawn from, which helps readers to make inferences and plan future studies. All of these points are important not only for the merit of the individual studies, but they also lend particular weight to the overall evidence‐base for the use of psychological interventions within clinical practice.…”

“…Despite this, some of the studies do not mention specific training (Stern et al, ), adherence to treatment fidelity (Hepburn et al, ; Perren, Schmid, & Wettstein, ; Stern et al, ; Ulstein et al, ), or use of a manual (Hepburn et al, ; Perren et al, ; Ulstein et al, ). None of the studies in this category address the issue of data collection being undertaken by ‘blinded’ researchers, two fail to specify who delivered the intervention (Hepburn et al, ; Perren et al, ), only two report power calculations (Ulstein et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ), and only two discuss clinical significance as well as statistical significance (Hepburn et al, ; Villareal‐Reyna et al, ).…”