4.2 Article

Feasibility of the Savvy Caregiver Program for LGBTQ plus Caregivers of People Living with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192215102

关键词

caregiving; Alzheimer's disease and related dementias; LGBTQ plus; feasibility study

资金

  1. Archstone Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging [R24AG065170, K01AG056669, R24AG066599]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the Savvy Caregiver Program for caregivers of LGBTQ+ individuals living with ADRD. The results showed that caregivers were highly satisfied with the tailored program activities, and there were non-significant increases in positive aspects of caregiving and decreases in caregiver burden and depressive symptoms. This is the first known study assessing the feasibility of the Savvy Caregiver Program for caregivers of LGBTQ+ individuals living with ADRD.
Nearly 350,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) adults in the U.S. are currently living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Informal caregivers face challenges impacting their ability to access and receive adequate and inclusive care for LGBTQ+ persons living with ADRD. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the Savvy Caregiver Program for caregivers of LGBTQ+ individuals living with ADRD. Data for this secondary analysis come from caregivers (n = 17) who completed 6 sessions of the Savvy program. Caregivers were very satisfied with tailored program activities. Analyses of trends suggest non-significant increases in positive aspects of caregiving and decreases in caregiver burden and depressive symptoms. This is the first known study assessing the feasibility of the Savvy Caregiver Program for caregivers of LGBTQ+ individuals living with ADRD. Future research on the Savvy Caregiver Program for caregivers of LGBTQ+ people living with ADRD is needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据