Skip to content

Developing and Testing the Enhancing Active Caregiver Training (EnACT) Intervention for Dementia Family Caregivers

Developing and Testing the Enhancing Active Caregiver Training (EnACT) Intervention for Dementia Family Caregivers

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04920006
Acronym
EnACT
Enrollment
30
Registered
2021-06-09
Start date
2023-07-13
Completion date
2024-12-31
Last updated
2026-05-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Dementia, Familial

Keywords

dementia, family caregivers, intervention

Brief summary

Persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) experience behavioral symptoms such as agitation, combativeness, depression, and apathy. These behaviors increase caregiver stress, which leads to negative outcomes, such as poor health, depression, and increased caregiver burden. This project seeks to develop and test an intervention to enhance active caregiver skill training to prepare caregivers to better manage behavioral symptoms in order to improve ADRD caregiver wellbeing. This intervention is called Enhancing Active Caregiver Training (EnACT). The study team will develop and conduct initial testing of EnACT techniques in a small group intervention with family caregivers of persons living with dementia. This intervention will first develop and refine EnACT through small group meetings with ADRD caregivers. Next, EnACT will be tested by two groups of ADRD caregivers in order to assess how achievable and useful caregivers find it to be. In addition, EnACT will be evaluated for its impact on caregiver preparation, stress process, and well-being.

Detailed description

Specific Aim 1: Develop and iteratively refine the EnACT intervention for ADRD caregivers. A series of three sequential focus groups will be used to gather ADRD caregiver feedback about EnACT-intervention techniques, including frequency, duration, delivery, feasibility, acceptability, and relevance of the intervention. Between focus groups, the investigators will refine and edit the EnACT intervention in an iterative process. Intervention scenarios and activities will be chosen and refined as part of Aim 1 in preparation for testing feasibility and acceptability during Aim 2 and mechanisms of action in Aim 3. Setting and Participants: The investigators will partner with community-based services through the Utah Caregiver Support Program and the Utah Alzheimer's Association to recruit 10 ADRD caregivers to participate in a series of three focus groups. Formal caregivers, persons under the age of 18, and individuals who have English fluency ratings of none or poor will be excluded. Data Source: During Focus Group 1, participants will view previously developed video segments in order to identify those that caregivers prefer for intervention practice. Participants will also explore intervention activities to assess which are most useful and acceptable. Revisions to the process will be made based on reactions and feedback. During Focus Group 2, participants will work through a revision of the steps based on Focus Group 1 feedback using a second video segment focused on behavioral symptoms in ADRD. A prototype intervention manual will be developed based on feedback from the first two focus groups. Focus Group 3 will involve reviewing developed prototype materials (i.e., manuals, videos) and a discussion on acceptability, the logistics for incorporating this intervention into caregiver training, challenges, and benefits of activities. Feedback from this focus group will be incorporated into the EnACT intervention in preparation for Aims 2 and 3. Measures: Each focus group will be audio-recorded and transcribed. The PI will also document observations and thoughts using field notes and journaling in order to account for bias. Focus group questions will focus on participant reactions to intervention steps (view, practice, reflect) to identify which activities are meaningful, facilitate or impede participation, and are of most help in ADRD caregiving. Participants will complete a demographic questionnaire to document age, caregiving experience, gender identity/sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and education. All materials developed during the process of intervention development, including edits and revisions, will be retained as an audit trail. Analytic Plan: All qualitative data will be analyzed in an iterative process to inform intervention development. NVivo software will be used to organize and analyze data and to document an audit trail. Coding will occur in two phases: 1) a priori codes to organize data based on the theoretical framework and intervention development, and 2) pattern coding within each a priori code. Team members (PI, RA, and co-primary mentors) will meet to resolve conflicts in coding and to help group patterns into major themes. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe participant demographics. Sample Size/Power Calculation: Guidelines for acceptable focus group size range from 4 to 12 participants, with a minimum of three focus groups. To account for potential attrition, a sample of 10 caregivers will be recruited to participate in three focus groups. This will provide enough time to elicit feedback regarding all elements of the intervention. Specific Aim 2: Evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the EnACT intervention. For Aim 2, the investigators will conduct an NIH Stage 1b pilot study to test the feasibility and acceptability of the EnACT intervention. A randomized waitlist control design will be used. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group A will first participate in the intervention (three meetings offered every 2 weeks at Weeks 2, 4, and 6), followed by 8 weeks of follow-up. T1 will be a pretest gathered at enrollment. Group B will wait 8 weeks and then start the intervention at Weeks 8, 10, and 12, with a posttest at Week 14. Data will be gathered at six time points no less than 2 weeks apart over the course of the control, intervention, and follow-up. Setting and Participants: Thirty ADRD caregivers from the Utah Caregiver Support Program and Utah Alzheimer's Association will be recruited and randomly assign them to the group-based EnACT intervention (n = 15) and a waitlist control group (n = 15). Eligibility criteria will include 1) being a primary, informal ADRD caregiver, 2) the ability to read and speak English, and 3) being age 18 or older. Caregivers will test the intervention developed and refined in Aim 1. A postintervention debriefing focus group will occur at Week 8 for Group A and Week 14 for Group B in order to gather feedback on the process and activities and any recommendations participants have for improving the intervention. Location: The intervention will take place at locations associated with our community partners' caregiver support groups, including senior centers, the Division of Aging & Adult Services, and offices of the Utah Chapter of the Alzheimer's Association. Frequency and duration of the intervention: The focus groups will meet every 2 weeks for a total of three 60-minute sessions. It is anticipated that participants will work through two scenarios per session. The frequency and duration have been chosen in consideration of caregiver burden. Delivery of intervention: The EnACT intervention will be led by an interventionist who will be recruited, trained, and supervised by the PI. The interventionist will also have access to the intervention manual, which will be developed during Aim 1 of the study. Measures and Data Source: Feasibility will be assessed by gathering screening data, recruitment rates, documentation of the randomization process, intervention adherence, completion rates, and fidelity. Intervention procedures will be assessed by examining participation rejection rates for each activity. Acceptability will be measured using observational data documented in video recordings, questions about participant satisfaction, and a postintervention focus group. Questions will focus on ease of participation, helpfulness, relevance, benefits/challenges, and comfort with each activity. The final survey will include open-ended questions targeting reflection on caregiving practices, assumptions, the caregiving environment, and influences on practice change. In addition, participants will be asked for suggestions for improvement, preference compared to other programs they have experienced, and barriers to or benefits of use as part of the postintervention focus group debriefing. Surveys will be used to capture demographics, mechanisms of the EnACT intervention, and outcomes. Video will be used to document audio and visual activities at each of the intervention meetings. These data will allow us to assess participant reactions to the intervention activities, which will influence our understanding of the acceptability of the intervention. The post-intervention focus group will be recorded using digital audio in order to assess for overall acceptability of the intervention, effectiveness, participant satisfaction, and facilitators of and barriers to participation. Analytic Plan: NVivo software will be used to organize and analyze qualitative data and document an audit trail. Digital audio recordings will be professionally transcribed. Video and written documentation will be directly imported and analyzed in the software. Coding will occur in two phases: first, a priori codes will be used to identify elements of feasibility and acceptability, and second, pattern coding within each a priori code. The PI and RA will meet weekly to analyze data, and monthly with the larger team (PI, RA, and mentors) to resolve conflicts in coding and to group patterns into major themes. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize levels of feasibility and acceptability. Power Analyses: The primary goal is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the EnACT intervention within the context of a randomized study, as well as the study protocol. Based on research best-practices guidance from NIH and noted experts, pilot studies-due to their smaller sample sizes and the frequent design adjustments necessary to maximize recruitment, retention, and quality assessment of outcomes-can not definitively test hypotheses, nor can they provide reliable effect-size estimates. Nevertheless, the proposed pilot will assess whether a subsequent full-scale RCT (NIH Stage III) modeled after this pilot is logistically feasible and acceptable. Specific Aim 3: Examine potential mechanisms of change over time and their subsequent impact on proximal and distal outcomes. Setting and Participants: Using the same sample from Aim 2, the investigators will assess the influence of the intervention on constructs from the guiding framework using multilevel growth modeling. Outcome measures will be administered a total of six times, beginning at enrollment and no less than every 2 weeks throughout waitlist control, intervention, and follow-up (see Figure 2). To decrease burden, participants will complete surveys in a manner of their choosing (i.e. phone, Internet, or in-person). Procedures and Measures: Instruments will include those measuring demographics, attributes of imagined interactions, capacity to adapt, appraisal of caregiving demands, perceived stress, and caregiver well-being. Analytic Approach: Data will be stored in a secure database built using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Descriptive statistics will be used to assess demographic data and caregiver practice. We will use generalized linear categorical dose-response models to explore the effect of the intervention over time on the main and secondary outcomes. Sample Size/Power Analysis: As an NIH Stage 1b pilot study, the goal is to assess the plausibility of this work in order to guide the next stage of research. Thus, it should not be expected that the sample size will have outstanding power. Constrained longitudinal data analysis will be used on the data set (N = 30) to exploit randomization and integrated with the full longitudinal impact data in order to give greater power than more limited analyses. Simulations conducted in SAS and analyzed under the integrated model (see Statistical Design and Power) yield a respectable power of .70 against the null hypothesis when the hypothesized slope difference corresponds to a medium effect size of .5.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALEnhancing Active Caregiver Training

The intervention has three components within each session. Step 1, View, involves group viewing of a caregiving scenario, developed during previous research, which portrays a situation in which a caregiver is dealing with a challenging behavioral symptom. Step 2, Practice, involves small-group rehearsal activities that facilitate understanding, making choices, and examining possible responses. Step 3, Reflect, involves self-reflection and group processing surrounding choices and observations.

Sponsors

University of Utah
Lead SponsorOTHER
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
CollaboratorNIH

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
SUPPORTIVE_CARE
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

We will use a randomized waitlist control design. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group A will first participate in the intervention (three meetings offered every 2 weeks at Weeks 2, 4, and 6), followed by 8 weeks of follow-up. T1 will be a pretest gathered at enrollment. Group B will wait 8 weeks and then start the intervention at Weeks 8, 10, and 12, with a posttest at Week 14. Data will be gathered at six time points no less than 2 weeks apart over the course of the control, intervention, and follow-up.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* providing primary, informal, support to family members with Alzheimer's disease or related dementia (ADRD). * 18 and older * ability to read and speak English.

Exclusion criteria

* Formal caregivers * Persons under the age of 18 * individuals who have English fluency ratings of none or poor

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Imagined Interactions: SpecificityAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)The Survey of Imagined Interactions measures outcomes of imagining interactions to prepare for the future. The Specificity subscale measures the level of detail within imagined interactions. It is a four-item subscale, where each question uses a 7-point Likert scale to gather data, with 1 being the lowest score for each item and 7 the highest. When totaled across items, this scale has a minimum value (less specificity) of 4 and a maximum value (more specificity) of 28.
Imagined Interactions: ProactivityAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)The Survey of Imagined Interactions measures outcomes of imagining interactions to prepare for the future. The Proactivity subscale measures the level of advanced preparation for an event using imagined interactions. It is a four-item subscale, where each question uses a 7-point Likert scale to gather data, with 1 being the lowest score for each item and 7 the highest. When totaled across items, this scale has a minimum value (less proactivity) of 4 and a maximum value (more proactivity) of 28.
Imagined Interactions: DiscrepancyAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)The Survey of Imagined Interactions measures outcomes of imagining interactions to prepare for the future. The Discrepancy subscale measures the level of difference between what one imagines and reality. In preparing for the future, the goal is to reduce discrepancy. This is a six-item subscale, where each question uses a 7-point Likert scale to gather data, with 1 being the lowest score for each item and 7 the highest. We reverse coded items so that a higher score is better and aligns with the other subscales of Imagined Interactions. When totaled across items, this scale has a minimum value (more discrepancy) of 6 and a maximum value (less discrepancy) of 42.
Capacity to AdaptAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)Capacity to Adapt is measured using the Resilience Scale. This scale measures one's ability to adapt specific to constructs of meaning, self-confidence, perseverance, serenity, and loneliness. This scale has 25 items that use a 7-point Likert scale for measurement, with 1 being the lowest score for each item and 7 the highest. The minimum total value of the scale is 25 (worse resilience) and maximum potential value of 175 (better resilience).
Caregiver Capacity to Appraise Demands: Caregiving Burden SubscaleAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)This outcome will be measured using the Revised Caregiving Appraisal Scale (5-point Likert scale) which asks ADRD caregivers to assess five subscales. This subscale focuses on Burden with a minimum value (better outcome) of 1 and a maximum value (worse outcome) of 5.
Caregiver Capacity to Appraise Demands: Caregiving Satisfaction SubscaleAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)This outcome will be measured using the Revised Caregiving Appraisal Scale (5-point Likert scale) which asks ADRD caregivers to assess five subscales. This subscale focuses on Satisfaction with a minimum value (worse outcome) of 1 and a maximum value (better outcome) of 5.
Caregiver Capacity to Appraise Demands: Caregiving Mastery SubscaleAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)This outcome will be measured using the Revised Caregiving Appraisal Scale (5-point Likert scale) which asks ADRD caregivers to assess five subscales. This subscale focuses on Mastery with a minimum value (worse outcome) of 1 and a maximum value (better outcome) of 5.
Caregiver Capacity to Appraise Demands: Care Demand SubscaleAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)This outcome will be measured using the Revised Caregiving Appraisal Scale (5-point Likert scale) which asks ADRD caregivers to assess five subscales. This subscale focuses on Care Demand with a minimum value (better outcome) of 1 and a maximum value (worse outcome) of 5.
Caregiver Capacity to Appraise Demands: Caregiving Environmental Impact SubscaleAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)This outcome will be measured using the Revised Caregiving Appraisal Scale (5-point Likert scale) which asks ADRD caregivers to assess five subscales. This subscale focuses on Caregiving Environmental Impact with a minimum value (better outcome) of 1 and a maximum value (worse outcome) of 5.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Perceived StressAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)The Perceived Stress Scale (5-point Likert scale) measures self-reported stress. Each question uses a 5-point Likert scale to gather data, where 0 is the lowest score and 4 is the highest score per item. When totaled across items, this scale has a minimum value (less perceived stress) of 0 and a maximum value (more perceived stress) of 40.
Modified Caregiver Burden InventoryAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)The Modified Caregiver Burden Inventory includes 24 questions that measure five subscales: Time, Physical, Social, Emotional, and Developmental. Each question uses a 5-point Likert scale to gather data, where 0 is the lowest score and 4 is the highest score per item. When totaled across items, this scale has a minimum value (less burden) of 0 and a maximum value (more burden) of 96.
Positive Aspects of Caregiving ScaleAssessed at six timepoints: baseline (T1), week 2 (T2), week 5 (T3), week 8 (T4), week 11 (T5), and week 14 (T6)The Positive Aspects of Caregiving Scale (5-point Likert scale) measures the perceptions of the benefits of caregiving. Nine questions each use a 5-point Likert scale where 1 is the lowest score and 5 the highest score for each item. When totaled across items, this scale has a minimum value (worse outcome) of 9 and a maximum value (better outcome) of 45.

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORJacqueline Eaton

University of Utah

Participant flow

Recruitment details

A two-step recruitment process was used: 1) flyers, emails, and in-person presentations were provided to invite individuals participating in caregiver support groups through the state chapter of the Alzheimer's Association and the Utah Caregiver Support Program; 2) the Time for Living and Caring (TLC) Intervention study served as a referral source. Recruitment took about four months. Those interested were screened via phone. If eligible they were invited to enroll in the study.

Pre-assignment details

Following enrollment, each participant completed the baseline survey and completed a technology check to make sure they could access the intervention. No significant events occurred between enrollment and assignment to intervention or wait-list control groups.

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic
Age: Care Partner70 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.15
Age, Continuous60 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.24
caregiver training or support
No
9 Participants
caregiver training or support
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
caregiver training or support
Yes
8 Participants
Education
Bachelors degree
6 Participants
Education
Did not graduate from high school
0 Participants
Education
Doctorate
0 Participants
Education
High school graduate
4 Participants
Education
Masters degree
6 Participants
Education
Post-graduate degree
0 Participants
Education
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Employment
Not employed
5 Participants
Employment
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Employment
Retired
7 Participants
Employment
Working full-time
7 Participants
Employment
Working part-time
3 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
14 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
Household income
$100,001 - $125,000
1 Participants
Household income
$125,001 or more
6 Participants
Household income
$25,001 - $40,000
3 Participants
Household income
$40,001 - $50,000
1 Participants
Household income
$50,001 - $60,000
2 Participants
Household income
$60,001 - $75,000
0 Participants
Household income
$75,001 - $100,000
2 Participants
Household income
Less than $10,000
1 Participants
Household income
Prefer not to answer
4 Participants
Length providing care
1-2 years
5 Participants
Length providing care
3-5 years
8 Participants
Length providing care
6-10 years
2 Participants
Length providing care
Less than 1 year
0 Participants
Length providing care
more than 10 years
1 Participants
Length providing care
Other
0 Participants
Length providing care
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Multiracial
2 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
13 Participants
Relationship Status
Divorced
0 Participants
Relationship Status
Living with Partner
0 Participants
Relationship Status
Married
15 Participants
Relationship Status
Other
0 Participants
Relationship Status
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Relationship Status
Separated
0 Participants
Relationship Status
Single, never been married
0 Participants
Relationship Status
Widow or widower
0 Participants
Sex: Care Partner
Female
13 Participants
Sex: Care Partner
Male
7 Participants
Sex: Care Partner
Other
0 Participants
Sex: Care Partner
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
13 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
2 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Friend
0 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Grandparent
1 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Other
0 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Parent
1 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Prefer not to answer
0 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Sibling
0 Participants
Who do you provide the majority of care for?
Spouse or partner
23 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 150 / 15
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 150 / 15
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 150 / 15

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: May 21, 2026