Family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study

There is a critical need for hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to prepare family caregivers for patients' post-discharge care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (named discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-12, Vol.17 (12), p.e0279187
Hauptverfasser: Fox, Mary T, Butler, Jeffrey I, Sidani, Souraya, Alzghoul, Manal M, Skinner, Mark, Amell, Travis, Ferguson-Paré, Mary
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 12
container_start_page e0279187
container_title PloS one
container_volume 17
creator Fox, Mary T
Butler, Jeffrey I
Sidani, Souraya
Alzghoul, Manal M
Skinner, Mark
Amell, Travis
Ferguson-Paré, Mary
description There is a critical need for hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to prepare family caregivers for patients' post-discharge care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (named discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to meet this need but family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of the interventions have not been examined. This gap is significant because unacceptable interventions are unlikely to be used or used as designed, thereby undermining outcome achievement. Accordingly, this study examined the perceived acceptability of the four interventions to rural family caregivers. A multi-method descriptive design was used. The quantitative method entailed the administration of an established scale to assess the interventions' perceived acceptability to family caregivers. The qualitative method involved semi-structured interviews to explore family caregivers' perceived acceptability of the interventions in greater depth, including acceptable and unacceptable aspects, in the context of their own transitional care experience. Participants were the family caregivers of a relative who had been discharged home in a rural community from an acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada. The purposive sample included 16 participants who were mostly middle-aged women (n = 14; 87.5%) caring for a parent (n = 9; 56.3%) at high risk for hospital readmission. The mean scores on the acceptability measure were 3 or higher for all interventions, indicating that, on average, the four interventions were perceived as acceptable. In terms of acceptable aspects, four themes were identified: the interventions: 1) involve family caregivers and proactively prepare them for discharge, 2) provide clear, written, and detailed guidance, 3) place the onus on healthcare providers to initiate communication, and 4) ensure post-discharge follow-up. In terms of unacceptable aspects, one theme was identified: the physical activity intervention would be challenging to implement. The findings support implementing the four interventions in practice throughout the hospital-to-home transition. Healthcare providers should assess family caregivers' comfort in participating in the physical activity intervention and tailor their role accordingly.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0279187
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2755803111</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A730602330</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_3e7ad0ede3fd41adb01326177b1619a0</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A730602330</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-d337d8ca0c06317d574b7b885ce3ee1fd58a36faf6a80a66238b5f33b943706a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tq3DAQhk1padK0b1BaQaGHi91K1lry9qIQQtMGAoGebsVYGu9qsS1XkpfuA_S9K2edkC25KAZb0nzzj_Rbk2XPGZ0zLtn7jRt8B828dx3OaS6XrJQPsmO25PlM5JQ_vDM-yp6EsKG04KUQj7MjLgq-ELI8zv6cQ2ubHdHgcWW36MMb0qd3jzqmaSCuI3GNBLTGPkJlGxt3xNWkTuWJ7SL6LXbRui6Q3rveBTQp5okfPDQkeuiCHcNpMtb4QE5JOzTRzlqMa2dIiIPZPc0e1dAEfDZ9T7If55--n32ZXV59vjg7vZxpWZRxZjiXptRANRWcSVPIRSWrsiw0ckRWm6IELmqoBZQUhMh5WRU159VywSUVwE-yl3vdvnFBTQ4GlcuiKClnjCXiYk8YBxvVe9uC3ykHVl0vOL9S4KPVDSqOEgxFg7w2CwamoozngklZMcGWQJPWx6naULVodPIpeXIgehjp7Fqt3FYtpcjHDZ1kbycB734NGKJqbdDYNNChG272TUW-TOirf9D7TzdRK0gHsF3tUl09iqpTyamgOedj2fk9VHoMtlan61bbtH6Q8O4gITERf8cVDCGoi29f_5-9-nnIvr7DrhGauA6uGa6v2yG42IPauxA81rcmM6rGbrlxQ43doqZuSWkv7v6g26Sb9uB_AZwzEbA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2755803111</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Fox, Mary T ; Butler, Jeffrey I ; Sidani, Souraya ; Alzghoul, Manal M ; Skinner, Mark ; Amell, Travis ; Ferguson-Paré, Mary</creator><contributor>Donlan, Joseph</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fox, Mary T ; Butler, Jeffrey I ; Sidani, Souraya ; Alzghoul, Manal M ; Skinner, Mark ; Amell, Travis ; Ferguson-Paré, Mary ; Donlan, Joseph</creatorcontrib><description>There is a critical need for hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to prepare family caregivers for patients' post-discharge care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (named discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to meet this need but family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of the interventions have not been examined. This gap is significant because unacceptable interventions are unlikely to be used or used as designed, thereby undermining outcome achievement. Accordingly, this study examined the perceived acceptability of the four interventions to rural family caregivers. A multi-method descriptive design was used. The quantitative method entailed the administration of an established scale to assess the interventions' perceived acceptability to family caregivers. The qualitative method involved semi-structured interviews to explore family caregivers' perceived acceptability of the interventions in greater depth, including acceptable and unacceptable aspects, in the context of their own transitional care experience. Participants were the family caregivers of a relative who had been discharged home in a rural community from an acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada. The purposive sample included 16 participants who were mostly middle-aged women (n = 14; 87.5%) caring for a parent (n = 9; 56.3%) at high risk for hospital readmission. The mean scores on the acceptability measure were 3 or higher for all interventions, indicating that, on average, the four interventions were perceived as acceptable. In terms of acceptable aspects, four themes were identified: the interventions: 1) involve family caregivers and proactively prepare them for discharge, 2) provide clear, written, and detailed guidance, 3) place the onus on healthcare providers to initiate communication, and 4) ensure post-discharge follow-up. In terms of unacceptable aspects, one theme was identified: the physical activity intervention would be challenging to implement. The findings support implementing the four interventions in practice throughout the hospital-to-home transition. Healthcare providers should assess family caregivers' comfort in participating in the physical activity intervention and tailor their role accordingly.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279187</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36534678</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Acceptability ; Aftercare ; Beliefs, opinions and attitudes ; Caregivers ; Data collection ; Discharge planning ; Domestic relations ; Exercise ; Family ; Female ; Health aspects ; Health care ; Health risks ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Intervention ; Interviews ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Ontario ; Patient Discharge ; Patients ; People and Places ; Physical activity ; Public opinion ; Qualitative Research ; Research ethics ; Rural areas ; Rural communities ; Rural health services ; Rural Population ; Sociodemographics ; Transitional Care</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-12, Vol.17 (12), p.e0279187</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2022 Fox et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Fox et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Fox et al 2022 Fox et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-d337d8ca0c06317d574b7b885ce3ee1fd58a36faf6a80a66238b5f33b943706a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-d337d8ca0c06317d574b7b885ce3ee1fd58a36faf6a80a66238b5f33b943706a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0572-3892</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762580/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9762580/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36534678$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Donlan, Joseph</contributor><creatorcontrib>Fox, Mary T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Jeffrey I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sidani, Souraya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alzghoul, Manal M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skinner, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amell, Travis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferguson-Paré, Mary</creatorcontrib><title>Family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>There is a critical need for hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to prepare family caregivers for patients' post-discharge care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (named discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to meet this need but family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of the interventions have not been examined. This gap is significant because unacceptable interventions are unlikely to be used or used as designed, thereby undermining outcome achievement. Accordingly, this study examined the perceived acceptability of the four interventions to rural family caregivers. A multi-method descriptive design was used. The quantitative method entailed the administration of an established scale to assess the interventions' perceived acceptability to family caregivers. The qualitative method involved semi-structured interviews to explore family caregivers' perceived acceptability of the interventions in greater depth, including acceptable and unacceptable aspects, in the context of their own transitional care experience. Participants were the family caregivers of a relative who had been discharged home in a rural community from an acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada. The purposive sample included 16 participants who were mostly middle-aged women (n = 14; 87.5%) caring for a parent (n = 9; 56.3%) at high risk for hospital readmission. The mean scores on the acceptability measure were 3 or higher for all interventions, indicating that, on average, the four interventions were perceived as acceptable. In terms of acceptable aspects, four themes were identified: the interventions: 1) involve family caregivers and proactively prepare them for discharge, 2) provide clear, written, and detailed guidance, 3) place the onus on healthcare providers to initiate communication, and 4) ensure post-discharge follow-up. In terms of unacceptable aspects, one theme was identified: the physical activity intervention would be challenging to implement. The findings support implementing the four interventions in practice throughout the hospital-to-home transition. Healthcare providers should assess family caregivers' comfort in participating in the physical activity intervention and tailor their role accordingly.</description><subject>Acceptability</subject><subject>Aftercare</subject><subject>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</subject><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Discharge planning</subject><subject>Domestic relations</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Family</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Ontario</subject><subject>Patient Discharge</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical activity</subject><subject>Public opinion</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Research ethics</subject><subject>Rural areas</subject><subject>Rural communities</subject><subject>Rural health services</subject><subject>Rural Population</subject><subject>Sociodemographics</subject><subject>Transitional Care</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tq3DAQhk1padK0b1BaQaGHi91K1lry9qIQQtMGAoGebsVYGu9qsS1XkpfuA_S9K2edkC25KAZb0nzzj_Rbk2XPGZ0zLtn7jRt8B828dx3OaS6XrJQPsmO25PlM5JQ_vDM-yp6EsKG04KUQj7MjLgq-ELI8zv6cQ2ubHdHgcWW36MMb0qd3jzqmaSCuI3GNBLTGPkJlGxt3xNWkTuWJ7SL6LXbRui6Q3rveBTQp5okfPDQkeuiCHcNpMtb4QE5JOzTRzlqMa2dIiIPZPc0e1dAEfDZ9T7If55--n32ZXV59vjg7vZxpWZRxZjiXptRANRWcSVPIRSWrsiw0ckRWm6IELmqoBZQUhMh5WRU159VywSUVwE-yl3vdvnFBTQ4GlcuiKClnjCXiYk8YBxvVe9uC3ykHVl0vOL9S4KPVDSqOEgxFg7w2CwamoozngklZMcGWQJPWx6naULVodPIpeXIgehjp7Fqt3FYtpcjHDZ1kbycB734NGKJqbdDYNNChG272TUW-TOirf9D7TzdRK0gHsF3tUl09iqpTyamgOedj2fk9VHoMtlan61bbtH6Q8O4gITERf8cVDCGoi29f_5-9-nnIvr7DrhGauA6uGa6v2yG42IPauxA81rcmM6rGbrlxQ43doqZuSWkv7v6g26Sb9uB_AZwzEbA</recordid><startdate>20221219</startdate><enddate>20221219</enddate><creator>Fox, Mary T</creator><creator>Butler, Jeffrey I</creator><creator>Sidani, Souraya</creator><creator>Alzghoul, Manal M</creator><creator>Skinner, Mark</creator><creator>Amell, Travis</creator><creator>Ferguson-Paré, Mary</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0572-3892</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221219</creationdate><title>Family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study</title><author>Fox, Mary T ; Butler, Jeffrey I ; Sidani, Souraya ; Alzghoul, Manal M ; Skinner, Mark ; Amell, Travis ; Ferguson-Paré, Mary</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c758t-d337d8ca0c06317d574b7b885ce3ee1fd58a36faf6a80a66238b5f33b943706a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Acceptability</topic><topic>Aftercare</topic><topic>Beliefs, opinions and attitudes</topic><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Discharge planning</topic><topic>Domestic relations</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Family</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Ontario</topic><topic>Patient Discharge</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical activity</topic><topic>Public opinion</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Research ethics</topic><topic>Rural areas</topic><topic>Rural communities</topic><topic>Rural health services</topic><topic>Rural Population</topic><topic>Sociodemographics</topic><topic>Transitional Care</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fox, Mary T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Butler, Jeffrey I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sidani, Souraya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alzghoul, Manal M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skinner, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amell, Travis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferguson-Paré, Mary</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fox, Mary T</au><au>Butler, Jeffrey I</au><au>Sidani, Souraya</au><au>Alzghoul, Manal M</au><au>Skinner, Mark</au><au>Amell, Travis</au><au>Ferguson-Paré, Mary</au><au>Donlan, Joseph</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2022-12-19</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e0279187</spage><pages>e0279187-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>There is a critical need for hospital-to-home transitional care interventions to prepare family caregivers for patients' post-discharge care in rural communities. Four evidence-based interventions (named discharge planning, treatments, warning signs, and physical activity) have the potential to meet this need but family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of the interventions have not been examined. This gap is significant because unacceptable interventions are unlikely to be used or used as designed, thereby undermining outcome achievement. Accordingly, this study examined the perceived acceptability of the four interventions to rural family caregivers. A multi-method descriptive design was used. The quantitative method entailed the administration of an established scale to assess the interventions' perceived acceptability to family caregivers. The qualitative method involved semi-structured interviews to explore family caregivers' perceived acceptability of the interventions in greater depth, including acceptable and unacceptable aspects, in the context of their own transitional care experience. Participants were the family caregivers of a relative who had been discharged home in a rural community from an acute care hospital in Ontario, Canada. The purposive sample included 16 participants who were mostly middle-aged women (n = 14; 87.5%) caring for a parent (n = 9; 56.3%) at high risk for hospital readmission. The mean scores on the acceptability measure were 3 or higher for all interventions, indicating that, on average, the four interventions were perceived as acceptable. In terms of acceptable aspects, four themes were identified: the interventions: 1) involve family caregivers and proactively prepare them for discharge, 2) provide clear, written, and detailed guidance, 3) place the onus on healthcare providers to initiate communication, and 4) ensure post-discharge follow-up. In terms of unacceptable aspects, one theme was identified: the physical activity intervention would be challenging to implement. The findings support implementing the four interventions in practice throughout the hospital-to-home transition. Healthcare providers should assess family caregivers' comfort in participating in the physical activity intervention and tailor their role accordingly.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>36534678</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0279187</doi><tpages>e0279187</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0572-3892</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2022-12, Vol.17 (12), p.e0279187
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2755803111
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Acceptability
Aftercare
Beliefs, opinions and attitudes
Caregivers
Data collection
Discharge planning
Domestic relations
Exercise
Family
Female
Health aspects
Health care
Health risks
Hospitals
Humans
Intervention
Interviews
Medicine and Health Sciences
Methods
Middle Aged
Ontario
Patient Discharge
Patients
People and Places
Physical activity
Public opinion
Qualitative Research
Research ethics
Rural areas
Rural communities
Rural health services
Rural Population
Sociodemographics
Transitional Care
title Family caregivers' perspectives on the acceptability of four interventions proposed for rural transitional care: A multi-method study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T21%3A30%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Family%20caregivers'%20perspectives%20on%20the%20acceptability%20of%20four%20interventions%20proposed%20for%20rural%20transitional%20care:%20A%20multi-method%20study&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Fox,%20Mary%20T&rft.date=2022-12-19&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e0279187&rft.pages=e0279187-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0279187&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA730602330%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2755803111&rft_id=info:pmid/36534678&rft_galeid=A730602330&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_3e7ad0ede3fd41adb01326177b1619a0&rfr_iscdi=true