The Effect of the "Safety in Dementia" Online Tool to Assist Decision Making for Caregivers of Persons With Dementia and Access to Firearms : A Randomized Trial.

IF 19.6 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Annals of Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-22 DOI:10.7326/ANNALS-24-00763
Marian E Betz, Jennifer Portz, Christopher Knoepke, Megan L Ranney, Stacy M Fischer, Ryan A Peterson, Rachel L Johnson, Faris Omeragic, Mirella Castaneda, Emily Greenway, Daniel Matlock
{"title":"The Effect of the \"Safety in Dementia\" Online Tool to Assist Decision Making for Caregivers of Persons With Dementia and Access to Firearms : A Randomized Trial.","authors":"Marian E Betz, Jennifer Portz, Christopher Knoepke, Megan L Ranney, Stacy M Fischer, Ryan A Peterson, Rachel L Johnson, Faris Omeragic, Mirella Castaneda, Emily Greenway, Daniel Matlock","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Caregivers face challenges (including competing desires to prevent injury, respect autonomy, and avoid conflict) when addressing firearm access by community-dwelling persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To test the effect of the online Safety in Dementia (SiD) decision aid on caregivers' decision making about firearm access for people with ADRD.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective 2-group randomized trial with longitudinal follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05173922).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>United States.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>English- or Spanish-speaking caregivers (aged ≥18 years) of community-dwelling adults with ADRD and firearm access.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>SiD versus a web-based information control.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome was preparation for decision making about firearm access. The secondary outcome at follow-up was self-reported action to reduce access.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 500 participants enrolled between June 2022 and February 2024, the mean age was 47 years, 69% identified as female, half were the adult child or stepchild of the person with ADRD, and 99% chose study participation in English. Participant characteristics were similar by study group. For the primary outcome, SiD significantly increased preparation for decision making versus the control (69.8 vs. 64.8 out of 100; mean difference, 4.80 [95% CI, 0.53 to 9.07]; <i>P</i> = 0.024). There was no significant effect on actions to reduce firearm access at 2 weeks or 2 months.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>The results may not be generalizable to non-English-speaking populations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. Use of such resources in clinical or community settings may support caregivers and people with ADRD in avoiding firearm injury or death.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00763","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Caregivers face challenges (including competing desires to prevent injury, respect autonomy, and avoid conflict) when addressing firearm access by community-dwelling persons with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD).

Objective: To test the effect of the online Safety in Dementia (SiD) decision aid on caregivers' decision making about firearm access for people with ADRD.

Design: Prospective 2-group randomized trial with longitudinal follow-up. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05173922).

Setting: United States.

Participants: English- or Spanish-speaking caregivers (aged ≥18 years) of community-dwelling adults with ADRD and firearm access.

Intervention: SiD versus a web-based information control.

Measurements: The primary outcome was preparation for decision making about firearm access. The secondary outcome at follow-up was self-reported action to reduce access.

Results: Among 500 participants enrolled between June 2022 and February 2024, the mean age was 47 years, 69% identified as female, half were the adult child or stepchild of the person with ADRD, and 99% chose study participation in English. Participant characteristics were similar by study group. For the primary outcome, SiD significantly increased preparation for decision making versus the control (69.8 vs. 64.8 out of 100; mean difference, 4.80 [95% CI, 0.53 to 9.07]; P = 0.024). There was no significant effect on actions to reduce firearm access at 2 weeks or 2 months.

Limitation: The results may not be generalizable to non-English-speaking populations.

Conclusion: The online SiD decision aid increased preparation for decision making about firearm access in this sample of ADRD caregivers in the United States. Use of such resources in clinical or community settings may support caregivers and people with ADRD in avoiding firearm injury or death.

Primary funding source: National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
痴呆症安全 "在线工具在协助痴呆症患者护理人员决策和获得枪支方面的效果 :随机试验
背景:护理人员在处理居住在社区的阿尔茨海默病及相关痴呆症(ADRD)患者使用枪支的问题时面临挑战(包括防止伤害、尊重自主权和避免冲突等相互竞争的愿望):测试在线痴呆症安全(SiD)决策辅助工具对照护者为阿尔茨海默病及相关痴呆症(ADRD)患者使用枪支做出决策的影响:设计:前瞻性两组随机试验,纵向跟踪。(ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05173922).地点:美国:地点:美国:干预措施:SiD 与基于网络的信息对照:干预措施:SiD 与网络信息对照:主要结果是为使用枪支的决策做好准备。随访的次要结果是自我报告的减少使用枪支的行动:在 2022 年 6 月至 2024 年 2 月期间注册的 500 名参与者中,平均年龄为 47 岁,69% 为女性,半数为 ADRD 患者的成年子女或继子,99% 的人选择用英语参与研究。各研究组的参与者特征相似。在主要结果方面,与对照组相比,SiD 显著提高了决策准备度(69.8 vs. 64.8,满分 100 分;平均差异为 4.80 [95% CI, 0.53 to 9.07];P = 0.024)。2周或2个月后,对减少枪支接触的行动没有明显影响:局限性:研究结果可能不适用于非英语国家人群:在线 SiD 决策辅助工具提高了美国 ADRD 护理人员对枪支使用决策的准备程度。在临床或社区环境中使用此类资源可帮助护理人员和 ADRD 患者避免枪支伤害或死亡:主要资金来源:美国国立卫生研究院国家老龄化研究所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Internal Medicine
Annals of Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
23.90
自引率
1.80%
发文量
1136
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
期刊最新文献
Annals Graphic Medicine - Chaos of Care: A Caretaker's Narrative. Association of Work Control With Burnout and Career Intentions Among U.S. Physicians : A Multi-Institution Study. Cost-Effectiveness of Extending Human Papillomavirus Vaccination to Population Subgroups Older Than 26 Years Who Are at Higher Risk for Human Papillomavirus Infection in the United States. Ethical Approaches to Limiting Overall Costs for Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for Weight Management. Firearms Are Not Motor Vehicles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1