Intergenerational Relations
Conditions
Keywords
Intergenerational Communication, Pilot randomized controlled trial, Meaning in life, Motivational interviewing, Parent adult±child relationship
Brief summary
This study evaluates the effectiveness of "ReFrame-R," a communication training program designed to help older adults in Hong Kong navigate intergenerational challenges. By focusing on enhancing communication competence and clarifying role boundaries within parent-child relationships, the research seeks to determine if this specialized intervention can improve the mental well-being of both older and younger generations. The study asks whether participating in the "ReFrame-R" curriculum leads to measurable improvements in how families interact, hypothesizing that older adults in the training group will demonstrate significantly better communication quality and a stronger sense of meaning compared to those in a control group. This study also aims to evaluate the program's overall feasibility and acceptability.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALReFrame-R
The ReFrame-R program is adapted from an established Motivational Interviewing (MI) protocol for laypersons (Kline et al., 2022). Grounded in Family Systems Theory, the curriculum specifically addresses over-functioning and under-functioning dynamics often found in older parent-adult child dyads and the cultural specific context of Hong Kong. Unlike general communication workshops, this program emphasizes role boundaries within parent-adult child relationship.
Sponsors
The University of Hong Kong
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
60 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Cantonese-speaking older adults * have regular contact with adult children * can comprehend traditional Chinese
Exclusion criteria
* known mental health diagnosis * mild or higher depressive symptoms (scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire \[PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001; Manea et al., 2015\]) * communication difficulties
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived communication competence | Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training | Participants' self-perceived communication competence is assessed using an 11-item scale adapted from the Family Communication Scale (FCS). The scale consists of 10 items adapted from the original FCS to measure perceived ability to engage in positive communication with adult children, plus an additional item regarding overall communicagtion competence. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with a total score ranging from 11 to 55. Higher scores indicate a higher level of perceived communication competence. |
| Meaning in life | Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training | The 10-item Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006) is used. It consists of two subscales: presence of meaning (5 items) and search of meaning (5 items). Each subscale is rated on a 7-point scale, with summed scores are calculated (ranged 5-35 for each). Higher scores indicate stronger sense of purpose and motivation to find meaning, respectively. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training | Participants' self-efficacy will be assessed using the 6-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6; Romppel et al., 2013). It is typically rated on a 4-point scale from 1 to 4. Total scores range from 6 to 24, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived self-efficacy. |
| Well-being | Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training | The 5-item WHO Well-Being Index will be adopted for measuring participants' subjective well-being (Bech, 1998; Kong et al., 2016), rated on a 7-point scale. The WHO-5 score ranges from 0 to 25, zero representing worst possible mental well-being and 25 representing best possible mental well-being. |
| Role boundaries | Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training | We used a 5-item scale adapted from the Control subscale of the Parent-Adult Child Relationship Questionnaire's Relationship with Father component (PACQF; Peisah et al., 1999). While the original scale assess children's perceptions of parental conrtol, this adapted version is a self-report measure for parent to assess their attempt to maintain power, influence, or dominance over their adult children. Each item is rated on a 5-point scale, with a total score ranging 5-25. Higher scores indicater higher levels of parent control, reflecting weaker awareness of role boundaries in parent-adult children relationship. |
| Family functioning | Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training | The 5-item Family Adaption, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve questionnaire (Family APGAR; Chan et al., 1988; Smilkstein, 1978) is used. This scale assesses participants' satisfaction with five aspects of family function. Each item is rated on a 3-point scale (0-2), with a total score ranged from 0 to 10. Higher scores indicate better family functioning. |
| Training appropriateness | Week 6 (2 week follow-up) | We used the 4-item Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from Weiner et al (2017) to access training appropriateness. All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with an average score being calculated. Higher scores indicate greater perceived appropriateness of training. |
| Training acceptability | Week 6 (2 week follow-up) | The 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) from Weiner et al (2017) is adopted to access training appropriateness. All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with an average score being calculated. Higher scores indicate greater perceived acceptability of training. |
| Training feasibility | Week 4 (end of training) | This study used the 4-item Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from Weiner et al (2017) to access training feasibility. All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with an average score being calculated. Higher scores indicate greater perceived feasibility of training. |
Countries
Hong Kong
Outcome results
None listed