4.3 Article

Telephone-Based, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for African American Dementia Caregivers With Depression: Initial Findings

期刊

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 124-139

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0028688

关键词

dementia; caregiving; African American; cognitive-behavioral therapy; telehealth; depression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Discuss initial findings of a randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of telephone-based and face-to-face (f-to-f) cognitive behavioral therapy (CRT) on changes in caregiver (CG) burden, assistance support, depression, and health status for African American (AA) CGs with depression. Design: Pilot study using a prepost, two-group design with 14 enrolled and randomized participants. Measures: Subjective Burden subscale of the Caregiver Appraisal Inventory, Assistance Support subscale of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List, Physical Symptoms subscale of the Caregiver Health and Health Behavior Inventory and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Results: Prepost improvements were found on 11 completers across all measures for both telephone and f-to-f CBT. Moderate and similar effects sizes for CG subjective burden and assistance support were found for both the telephone and f-to-f groups. Effect sizes for physical symptoms and depression varied from low to moderate, respectively, with a trend toward smaller improvements in f-to-f CBT than in telephone CBT. Qualitative analysis highlighted CGs' perceptions of the active ingredients of treatment and provided indirect support for similar gains in emotional and psychosocial functioning across the two treatment modalities. Conclusions: Both telephone-based and f-to-f CBT showed improvements in depression, subjective burden, and assistance support in dementia AA CGs. Replication with a larger sample size (N = 106) is currently in progress. Study limitations and future directions for research are also addressed.

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

4.3
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