Skip to main content
Download PDF

Randomized controlled trial of a positive emotion regulation intervention to reduce stress in family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: protocol and design for the LEAF 2.0 study

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 289 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s disease can be stressful, resulting in poorer emotional and physical health among family caregivers. Although supportive resources for caregivers are available, distance, caregiver health, and the daily demands of caregiving are barriers to access. Based on research demonstrating the importance of positive emotions in coping with stress, our previous trial showed that dementia caregivers who participated in facilitated, web-based delivery of a positive emotion regulation intervention called LEAF (Life Enhancing Activities for Family caregivers) experienced increased positive emotion and decreased depression and anxiety. Building on this evidence, the LEAF 2.0 study aims to test whether web-based, self-guided delivery can confer similar benefits for caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease.

Methods

This paper presents the design and methods for LEAF 2.0, a 3-arm web-based randomized controlled trial (N = 500) in which family caregivers of patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are randomized to (1) the LEAF intervention facilitated remotely via the web (N = 200), (2) the LEAF intervention self-guided online (N = 200), or (3) an emotion reporting control (N = 100), which then crosses over to the intervention after approximately 6 months, half to the facilitated arm and half to the self-guided arm. We aim to (1) compare the effect of the facilitated and self-guided LEAF positive emotion interventions to an emotion reporting control condition on AD caregiver well-being (positive emotion, depression, anxiety, and perceived stress) and secondary outcomes (caregiving burden, caregiving self-efficacy, positive aspects of caregiving, quality of care, and AD patient quality of life); (2) assess whether effects are mediated by improvements in positive emotion or other aspects of caregiver well-being; and (3) test whether caregiver age or gender or the care recipient’s dementia severity moderates the effects of the intervention.

Discussion

If demonstrated to be effective, LEAF can be widely disseminated and ultimately have a significant impact on the stress experienced by AD caregivers and the well-being of people living with Alzheimer’s disease.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03610698.

Peer Review reports

Background

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a debilitating and anxiety-provoking illness that impacts not only those with dementia but also their loved ones, who often serve as caregivers. The prevalence of AD and other dementias is rising and is predicted to impact as many as 16 million Americans by 2050 [1]. More than 90% of persons with dementia (PWD) will receive some amount of care from a family member or friend [2]. Providing care for a PWD can be a chronic stressor and burden as the PWD loses the ability to perform many daily tasks themselves and comes to depend on the caregiver(s) to meet their needs. Furthermore, the psychological toll of seeing a loved one decline is substantial [3] and puts caregivers at a higher risk than noncaregivers for developing a variety of health issues [4,5,6], including higher levels of depression [7,8,9].

Existing interventions for dementia caregivers have mainly focused on reducing negative emotion and burden through teaching caregiving skills [10,11,12], providing social support [8], and teaching stress management techniques [13, 14]. However, a number of studies now show that increases in positive emotion are related to beneficial outcomes, independent of decreases in negative emotion [10, 11, 15,16,17], across a range of stressful contexts. Positive emotion and related constructs, such as optimism and resilience, have been linked to better mental health and quality of life and lower perceived burden in dementia caregivers [18, 19]. These findings suggest that a positive emotion regulation intervention could successfully decrease the impact of caregiving stress on the overall well-being of dementia caregivers and potentially increase the quality of care they provide for their loved one living with AD.

Prompted by the link between positive emotion and beneficial psychological and physical health outcomes, we developed LEAF (Life Enhancing Activities for Family Caregivers), an intervention that teaches evidence-based positive emotion regulation skills to caregivers to better cope with stress. It is premised on the Positive Pathways to Health model [20], which integrates evidence for positive psychological interventions (PPIs) and foundational theories, including Revised Stress and Coping Theory [7] and the Broaden-and-Build Theory of positive emotion [21]. The Positive Pathways to Health model posits that PPIs such as LEAF support well-being and stress management by increasing positive emotion, which provides a break from stressful experiences and builds physical, social, and intellectual personal resources that can renew one’s ability to cope. These proximal effects reduce stress, leading to improvements in health behaviors and physiologic functions, ultimately resulting in better psychological and physical health.

In the original LEAF study [22], dementia caregivers learned positive emotion regulation skills via one-on-one video sessions with a trained facilitator. Compared to an emotion reporting waitlist control condition, caregivers who were in the LEAF condition reported improvements in positive emotion, positive aspects of caregiving, depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, consistent with the Positive Pathways to Health model, positive emotion appeared to mediate the effect of the LEAF program on reduced depression [22].

Although LEAF 1.0 showed evidence of efficacy, the high-effort nature of one-on-one facilitated sessions limits our ability to disseminate the intervention on a larger scale. Thus, in the present trial (LEAF 2.0), we compare the effects of a self-guided online version of LEAF to the facilitated version. Primary outcomes are caregiver psychological well-being (positive emotion, depression, anxiety, perceived stress), and secondary outcomes are caregiving burden, caregiving self-efficacy, positive aspects of caregiving, quality of care, and AD patient quality of life. In addition, we explore whether the intervention’s effects on caregiver well-being are mediated through improvements in positive emotion. Finally, we examine whether caregiver age or gender or PWD dementia severity moderates the effects of the intervention on caregiver well-being.

Methods/Design

Overview of study design

LEAF 2.0 is a 3-arm, web-based, randomized controlled trial (N = 500) in which family caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are randomly assigned to (1) the LEAF intervention facilitated remotely via the web (N = 200), (2) the LEAF intervention self-guided online (N = 200), or (3) an emotion reporting control (N = 100) that crosses over to the intervention after approximately 7 months, half to the facilitated arm and half to the self-guided arm.

Participants

Eligibility criteria

To be eligible for participation in LEAF 2.0, participants must identify as the primary family caregiver of someone with Alzheimer’s disease or Alzheimer’s-related dementia and whose care recipient is not living in a care facility at the time of enrollment. “Primary family caregiver” is defined as the person who spends the most time caring for the individual with AD in a nonprofessional capacity. Participants must also be able to speak and read English, live in the United States, be at least 18 years of age, and have access to a reliable Wi-Fi connection. Respondents are ineligible if they have already participated in a prior version of LEAF.

Recruitment and enrollment

Participants are recruited online via advertisements on platforms such as Facebook and Google; postings in caregiver newsletters; and registries such as the Family Caregiver Alliance, Alzheimer’s Association TrialMatch, ResearchMatch, The New Normal (TNN), the Mesulam Center for Cognitive Neurology and Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Core and its participants at Northwestern University. Additionally, we collaborate with Recruitment Partners LLC, a recruitment firm that specializes in recruitment for Alzheimer’s and related dementias research, to supplement our own efforts in meeting our recruitment goals. Advertisements contain a link to a short, online eligibility screener administered in REDCap. Individuals who are not eligible are immediately notified of their ineligibility and thanked for their time.

Eligible participants are contacted by study staff via email to sign up for Zoom audio calls for staff to confirm participant eligibility, explain the study and general research participation, and answer any questions the participant may have. Following the call, caregivers who wish to participate are sent an email with a link to an online consent form in REDCap. Upon completion of the consent form, REDCap automatically sends the participant a link to their baseline assessment.

Procedures

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures were approved and monitored by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Northwestern University, and all participants provided informed consent electronically via REDCap. All staff members have completed Human Subjects Research Training either through the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative or the NIH Human Subjects Training Module. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03610698). Any protocol changes will be approved by IRB prior to implementing them, and information provided to participants and within the clinical trials registration will be updated accordingly.

Randomization

Participants are randomized into one of three arms using a 2:2:1 allocation ratio: (1) facilitated LEAF intervention condition with weekly one-on-one videoconferencing meetings via Zoom, (2) an online, self-guided LEAF intervention condition, or (3) an emotion reporting waitlist control that crosses over to either the facilitated or self-guided LEAF intervention after 7 months. We stratify randomization based on gender and level of caregiving burden using the short-form 6-item Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) [23] as our measure of burden severity. The randomization assignments are computer-generated via a randomization schedule uploaded to REDCap.

All aspects of the study (recruitment, consent, intervention, and assessments) will be conducted online. Participants are given the option to receive an Android tablet, which enables the enrollment of caregivers who do not have access to a suitable device for participation. Those participants will be allowed to keep the tablet once they complete the study. Study staff preloaded the tablet with the Zoom videoconferencing app and a link to the study website on the home screen. Participants also receive tablet and Wi-Fi connection guides and additional tech support as needed from study staff. These measures increase the accessibility of the study for caregivers who describe themselves as less “tech-savvy.” No other participation incentives are provided.

Blinding/Concealment

There is no blinding/concealment of participants, research staff, or assessors in this study. It isn’t possible for participants to be blind to condition given the waitlist control design. Specifically, all participants receive the intervention, and there is no “placebo” or inert content. Arm 3, the emotion reporting waitlist control group, serves as the control condition for this study, and participants who are randomly assigned to that arm receive the intervention seven months after enrollment rather than right away. Assessments are self-administered via REDCap so there are no assessors to be blinded as to whether participants are in the intervention or control condition.

Fig. 1
figure 1

LEAF 2.0 participant timeline

Full size image

Assessments

Online assessments are administered via REDCap, a secure, HIPAA-compliant, web-based app designed to support data collection and management for research studies. Participants complete assessments at seven time points (see Fig. 1): baseline and 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13 months. Assessments include self-report measures of demographics, depression, positive and negative emotion, psychological well-being, coping resources, potential moderators, and satisfaction with the intervention. See Table 1 for the full list of measures. Participants also complete daily check-ins using surveys that include questions about stressful and positive events and positive and negative emotions. They complete these daily check-ins for a one-week “burst” each time they are sent an assessment and daily during the eight-week intervention period.

Table 1 Table of measures
Full size table

Intervention and control conditions

Positive emotion regulation skills

This study utilizes a six-session, multicomponent positive emotion regulation skills intervention that includes eight empirically supported cognitive and behavioral skills that have been demonstrated to increase positive emotion across a number of samples [24,25,26]. The skills included in the LEAF 2.0 intervention are (1) noticing positive events, (2) savoring positive events, (3) gratitude, (4) mindful awareness and nonjudgment, (5) positive reappraisal, (6) self-compassion, (7) personal strengths, and (8) attainable goals (see Table 2). Giving participants a variety of skills to choose from allows them to identify the ones that are most effective for them, which may increase the chances that the intervention will be successful [27].

Table 2 Overview of intervention sessions, goals, and home practice
Full size table

LEAF 2.0 was tailored to include language and skills that would be most relevant to AD caregivers. The included skills are the same as LEAF 1 [26] and other previous versions of the intervention [25, 28, 29] with the exception of self-compassion, which was substituted for acts of kindness. Given that caregiving activities could be considered acts of kindness, we felt that self-compassion, defined as extending kindness to oneself (instead of self-judgment), especially during times of stress [30], was a better fit for these caregivers and made that change with this iteration of the LEAF program.

Facilitator guided LEAF skills condition (Arm 1). When a participant is randomized to Arm 1, they are assigned a facilitator who then schedules an initial videoconferencing session. The sessions take place over approximately 6 weeks (5 weeks for delivery of the skills plus one week for wrap-up and discussion of continued practice). The home practice follows each session for a total of 6 weeks. Each session has a didactic portion that covers 1–3 skills, followed by an opportunity to practice with the facilitator in the session. Between training sessions, participants are asked to complete home exercises and write daily experiences on the same online platform that the self-guided participants use (see below). They are also asked to complete daily stress and emotion questions included in the control condition.

LEAF sessions are facilitated by research staff and trainees who are not licensed clinicians. Facilitator training includes review of study aims and LEAF session guides (i.e., scripts), watching recordings of LEAF sessions conducted by seasoned facilitators, and role-play of LEAF sessions with an established facilitator acting as an AD caregiver. Training and feedback focus on presentation style, responding to typical challenges, and emphasizing consistent presentation of specific content milestones to maintain intervention fidelity. After new facilitators receive their first participant assignment, an established facilitator reviews their session recordings and provides feedback according to the quality assurance (QA) form and procedures (see below). Trained facilitators meet approximately monthly to review progress, share examples, and discuss challenges.

Following procedures used in our prior research [31], 10% of LEAF sessions are randomly selected for fidelity monitoring and QA. Video recordings are reviewed alongside the corresponding LEAF session script and a checklist of necessary session components. Reviews can also include qualitative comments about specific session components or the session overall. Each element on the QA checklist is assigned 1 point if present or 0 if missing, and the session score is calculated as a percentage. Any facilitator who averages less than 90% undergoes retraining.

Self-guided condition (Arm 2). In Arm 2, the skills are delivered as a self-guided program arranged into six online modules on the study platform. The web-based platform is designed, developed, and hosted by BrightOutcome, a digital health technology company that specializes in patient-centered healthcare applications. The website hosts the intervention for the self-guided arm, home practice for the facilitated and self-guided arms, and emotion reporting for the waitlist control condition.

Once randomized to the self-guided condition, participants are sent an email to activate their account on the LEAF study website, which includes features designed to increase both usability and participant engagement. The homepage of the LEAF website includes a dashboard with links to daily emotion check-in surveys and home practice activities, and a display of completion progress. For participants in the self-guided arm, the site includes a tab to easily navigate to the skill readings and a discussion board, where caregivers have the option of posting their home practice to share with fellow participants and reply to the posts of others. Self-guided participants earn virtual badges for various milestones throughout the intervention, such as logging in for ten consecutive days, posting to the discussion board five times, and completing ten home practices (see Figs. 2, 3 and 4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

LEAF 2.0 website dashboard

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

LEAF 2.0 website awards page

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Example of LEAF 2.0 website virtual badges

Full size image

Each lesson contains 1–3 skills and is designed to be completed within 1 week; however, to allow for variations in individual schedules and self-pacing, participants are given a total of 8 weeks to complete the LEAF course. Participants also have the opportunity to complete daily online home practice throughout the intervention, which includes daily emotion check-ins and skill practice exercises. The website remains available to participants even after their participation in the study has concluded, so they can continue the home practice or revisit skills.

Waitlist Control (Arm 3). Participants who are randomized into Arm 3 receive an automated email from REDCap notifying them that they will start the LEAF course in 7 months. The LEAF 2.0 platform sends an automated email instructing participants to activate their account, and they begin eight weeks of emotion reporting. Arm 3 participants begin their crossover to the intervention after completing the fourth assessment. Crossover procedures mirror the intervention group procedures described earlier, and the participant receives an email instructing them to reactivate their LEAF account.

Retention and attrition

Study staff provide participants with a contact email and phone number and respond promptly to any questions or concerns raised by participants. If participants fail to log into LEAF 2.0 to begin the intervention or emotion reporting, they receive up to three follow-up emails and/or phone calls to prompt engagement. Even if these contacts are ineffective, follow-up assessments are still sent unless the participant requests to withdraw.

Requests to withdraw from LEAF are processed by study staff, who note in REDCap the date the request was received, the reason (if given), the last activity the participant completed (e.g., completed session 2 with facilitator, completed assessment 4, etc.), and the name of the study team member who processed the withdrawal. The study team notifies the participant via email that their withdrawal has been completed and that they will not receive additional invites or reminders for study activities. Participants are permitted to keep their study-provided tablet upon withdrawing.

Data and safety monitoring

The funding agency did not require a Data and Safety Monitoring Board for this project because it is not an NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial and was deemed by the IRB to be of minimal risk. Instead, an external study monitor reviews results of interim analyses to determine whether group-level changes in PROMIS depression and anxiety raise study stopping concerns, based on meaningful increases ( > = 5 points on PROMIS T-score metric) or in the proportion of participants with moderate to severe elevations (PROMIS T-score > = 60) in these symptoms.

At the individual level of safety monitoring, LEAF staff will be alert to possible signs of significant distress and/or suicidality such as statements via phone, email, discussion board, or during facilitated sessions. When a staff member observes or receives a potential signal of increased distress in a participant, whether in response to study procedures that involve reporting on or describing negative or stressful emotions and experiences, the demands of caring for a loved one with AD, and/or the stressors of daily life, they will make note of as many details of the statement and/or circumstances as possible and contact the LEAF safety team, consisting of the study PI, team licensed clinical psychologist, and project director. With guidance from the PI and clinical psychologist, project director (and/or facilitator if participant is currently receiving facilitated LEAF sessions), will provide distressed participants with information about how to seek help. Given that participants may live anywhere in the United States, it will not be possible to provide them with direct referrals for therapy or medical care. However, study staff will provide resources for identifying a local provider or other support services, based on national recommendations (e.g., Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)) or via their existing healthcare team (e.g., primary care physician) for further evaluation and local recommendations. If the participant’s distress appears to be related to their engagement in LEAF 2.0, the project director will also file Reportable New Information (RNI) with the IRB within five business days from the date when study staff are notified or become aware of the participant’s distress.

In addition, to protect participant confidentiality, identifiable information will be collected using REDCap which uses industry-standard encryption to protect participants’ information while in transit from the moment data is entered to the moment it is stored on HIPAA compliant servers. Access to REDCap is granted only to key personnel.

Bright Outcome hosts the LEAF 2.0 platform and is protected by end-to-end encryption and password measures. Participants will be assigned and identified by a unique Study ID on the LEAF 2.0 platform that only key IRB approved personnel will have access to. No identifiable data will ever be stored locally on staff computers, and no data are ever stored locally on participants’ devices (tablet, home computer, or mobile device).

Facilitated session recordings will be securely stored on Northwestern servers, accessible only to IRB-approved study staff. After completion of primary data analysis, recordings will be deleted.

Outcomes

Planned analyses

The primary outcomes, psychological well-being (positive emotion, depression, anxiety, perceived stress), will be evaluated using intent-to-treat longitudinal growth models with varying times of observation. Given variability in the actual time that participants will complete each assessment, we will use time elapsed since the baseline assessment (in months) as our metric of time. We plan to model time (centered at baseline) at Level 1 and the randomization arm (facilitator-guided LEAF vs. self-guided LEAF vs. emotion-reporting waitlist control) at Level 2, dummy-coded with emotion-reporting control as the reference category. We will test for both linear and quadratic changes over time and present the results for the best-fitting longitudinal change pattern. The primary parameters of interest will be the differences in the magnitude of change of each of the active intervention conditions (facilitator-guided LEAF and self-guided LEAF) relative to the control condition over time. We hypothesize that both active intervention conditions will demonstrate improved psychological well-being relative to the control. Intervention effects on secondary outcomes (see above and Table 1) will also be assessed with longitudinal growth models.

Mediation effects will be examined using parallel growth models [32] with individual varying times of observation. For the mediational analyses, we will combine the two active intervention conditions (facilitator-guided LEAF and self-guided LEAF) to explore the effects of the intervention (regardless of delivery method) compared to the control condition. We plan to conduct multilevel moderated mediation analyses [33] using a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) framework [34]. More specifically, mediation effects will be estimated by examining the indirect effect of the intervention on change in caregiving burden through the effect of change in the mediating variable(s) (e.g., positive emotion) on change in caregiving burden. We will test the significance of the specific indirect effect in the MSEM using the Monte Carlo method with 20,000 bootstraps [35, 36]. In addition, we will conduct exploratory mediational analyses to explore whether improvements in positive emotion mediate the intervention effects on secondary psychological well-being (perceived stress, life satisfaction, self-efficacy, and meaning and purpose) and caregiving outcomes (positive aspects of caregiving, caregiving self-efficacy, quality of care provided, and care recipient QOL). Once again, we will conduct multilevel moderated mediation analyses to explore these effects.

Finally, a third set of analyses will utilize the postintervention assessments (Assessment 2 for Arms 1 and 2 or Assessment 5 for Arm 3) across both groups. Such analyses will enable us to examine whether benefits from the intervention are maintained over time. Therefore, the test of change for the two combined groups will be used to determine the shape of the trajectory for study participants following the end of the intervention and whether benefits to caregivers remain at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups.

We will conduct exploratory tests to examine whether the effects of the intervention are moderated by age, gender, or baseline dementia severity. For the moderation analyses, we will combine the two active intervention conditions to explore the effects of intervention (regardless of delivery method) compared to the control condition. For each potential moderator, we will rerun the longitudinal growth models with a set of interaction variables between the moderator and the treatment indicator (LEAF intervention vs. emotion-reporting control) regressed on the slope factor (i.e., change over time). Due to power limitations, we will not test all four moderators in the same model or explore any interactions among the moderators.

Power

Simple group comparisons for single timepoints or pre-post comparisons between the facilitated (n = 200) and self-guided (n = 200) groups will have 80% power to detect effect sizes of d = 0.28 (R2 = 0.019), smaller than the observed effect sizes for positive emotion, negative emotion, stress, depression, and anxiety in our previous LEAF trial [37]. Comparisons between the wait-list control group (n = 100) and the LEAF interventions individually (n = 200) or taken together (n = 400) will have 80% power to detect effect sizes of d = 0.34 (R2 = 0.029) and d = 0.31 (R2 = 0.024), respectively. Our design of seven timepoints and 500 individuals exceeds established minimums for detecting predictors of individual differences [38] and for detecting associations between parallel growth processes [39]. Power for these models was estimated by Monte Carlo simulation to account for our longitudinal experimental design. The effects of the observed predictors (i.e., LEAF group, Aim 1) had 80% power for effects of d = 0.27 (R2 = 0.018). Parallel growth curves showed 80% power for slope correlations of r =.14 (R2 = 0.019) and comparable power for indirect effects of (r =.15, R2 = 0.021), consistent with previous work on mediational power [40].

Data access and dissemination

Prior to publication of results from the planned analyses (see above) only study staff will have access to the dataset. Manuscripts will be published in open access journals in accordance with guidelines for NIH-funded projects. The clinicaltrials.gov registration will also be updated with these findings. After publication of the planned analyses, the fully de-identified dataset will be made publicly available through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/).

Discussion

The literature has repeatedly demonstrated the psychological and physical toll that caring for a loved one takes on an individual [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. Given these adverse effects, there is a great need for interventions to improve family caregiver well-being; this need only grows as the prevalence of AD increases. LEAF aims to improve the lives of family caregivers by increasing positive emotion, which has been shown to have significant benefits not just for the caregiver but possibly for the PWD as well. LEAF 2.0 builds on our previous work [37] by increasing the availability and convenience of the LEAF program to a wider population of caregivers across the country. If the self-guided LEAF intervention is demonstrated to be as beneficial to caregivers as the facilitated version, LEAF 2.0 will prove to be an important step forward in both addressing the need for increased access to AD caregiver well-being resources and improving the quality of life of PWD and their family caregivers.

This study is not without limitations. While an online intervention can be convenient, it also limits the recruitable population of caregivers by excluding those who do not have reliable internet access or who are reluctant to participate because they are not comfortable with technology. We do attempt to address the latter through increased tech support throughout participation; however, low comfort with technology is still a formidable barrier [49, 50]. To the extent that access to a reliable internet connection or comfort with technology skews the demographics of caregivers who enroll in the study, our results will be similarly biased and will not be generalizable to the full array of AD caregivers.

In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a significant obstacle in clinical trial recruitment (Mitchell et al., 2020). Recent studies make clear that COVID is having a negative impact on many aspects of the research enterprise across many types of studies, not simply those that relied on face-to-face recruitment [51,52,53]. Although LEAF 2.0 benefits from its virtual nature, the fact that caregivers face increased psychological distress and caregiving hours due to COVID-19 [54] may impact their inclination to participate in research and could further bias our sample to those who, perhaps, are less burdened in their caregiving.

Finally, the focus of LEAF on positive emotion should not be misconstrued as an attempt to minimize the significant stress of providing care for PWD. LEAF is not instructing caregivers to “don’t worry-be happy.” Instead, consistent with the Positive Pathways to Health Model [20], we argue that an intervention that specifically increases positive emotion can result in a cascade of beneficial effects, including reduced burden and improved quality of care. Ultimately, given the high levels of stress and depression documented in dementia caregivers, we consider positive emotion to be an inherently worthwhile goal.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

AD:

Alzheimer’s disease

LEAF:

Life Enhancing Activities for Family Caregivers

MSEM:

multilevel structural equation modeling

NIH:

National Institutes of Health

PWD:

persons with dementia

QOL:

quality of life

RCT:

randomized controlled trial

REDCap:

Research Electronic Data Capture

ZBI:

Zarit Burden Interview

References

  1. Weuve J, Hebert LE, Scherr PA, Evans DA. Prevalence of Alzheimer Disease in US States. Epidemiology. 2015;26(1):e4–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kasper JD, Freedman VA, Spillman BC, Wolff JL. The disproportionate impact of dementia on family and unpaid caregiving to older adults. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(10):1642–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Perren S, Schmid R, Wettstein A. Caregivers’ adaptation to change: the impact of increasing impairment of persons suffering from dementia on their caregivers’ subjective well-being. Aging Ment Health. 2006;10(5):539–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chakraborty R, Jana A, Vibhute VM. Caregiving: a risk factor of poor health and depression among informal caregivers in India- A comparative analysis. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dowling GA, Merrilees J, Mastick J, Chang VY, Hubbard E, Moskowitz JT. Life enhancing activities for family caregivers of people with frontotemporal dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2014;28(2):175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schulz R, Eden J. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.), editors. Families caring for an aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016. 345 p.

  7. Folkman S. Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(8):1207–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mittelman MS, Haley WE, Clay OJ, Roth DL. Improving caregiver well-being delays nursing home placement of patients with Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2006;67(9):1592–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sin NL, Lyubomirsky S. Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: a practice-friendly meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2009;65(5):467–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chu P, Edwards J, Levin R, Thomson J. The use of clinical case management for early stage Alzheimer’ patients and their families. Am J Alzheimers Dis Dementiasr. 2000;15(5):284–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McCallion P, Toseland RW, Freeman K. An evaluation of a family visit education program. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47(2):203–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Quayhagen MP, Quayhagen M. Differential effects of family-based strategies on Alzheimer’s disease. Gerontologist. 1989;29(2):150–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris RG, Woods RT, Davies KS, Berry J, Morris LW. The use of a coping strategy focused support group for carers of dementia sufferers. Couns Psychol Q. 1992;5(4):337–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zarit SH, Anthony CR, Boutselis M. Interventions with care givers of dementia patients: comparison of two approaches. Psychol Aging. 1987;2(3):225–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hébert R, Dubois MF, Wolfson C, Chambers L, Cohen C. Factors associated with long-term institutionalization of older people with dementia: data from the Canadian study of Health and Aging. J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(11):M693–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mausbach BT, Chattillion E, Roepke SK, Ziegler MG, Milic M, von Känel R, et al. A longitudinal analysis of the relations among stress, depressive symptoms, leisure satisfaction, and endothelial function in caregivers. Health Psychol off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2012;31(4):433–40.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roepke SK, Allison M, Von Känel R, Mausbach BT, Chattillion EA, Harmell AL, et al. Relationship between chronic stress and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in elderly Alzheimer’s disease caregivers. Stress Amst Neth. 2012;15(2):121–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fianco A, Sartori RDG, Negri L, Lorini S, Valle G, Delle Fave A. The relationship between burden and well-being among caregivers of Italian people diagnosed with severe neuromotor and cognitive disorders. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;39:43–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trapp SK, Perrin PB, Aggarwal R, Peralta SV, Stolfi ME, Morelli E, et al. Personal strengths and Health Related Quality of Life in Dementia Caregivers from Latin America. Behav Neurol. 2015;2015:507196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Moskowitz JT, Addington EL, Cheung EO. Positive psychology and health: well-being interventions in the context of illness. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2019;61:136–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fredrickson BL. What good are positive emotions? Rev Gen Psychol. 1998;2(3):300–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Moskowitz JT, Cheung EO, Snowberg KE, Verstaen A, Merrilees J, Salsman JM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a facilitated online positive emotion regulation intervention for dementia caregivers. Health Psychol. 2019;38(5):391–402.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Higginson IJ, Gao W, Jackson D, Murray J, Harding R. Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden interviews were valid in advanced conditions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):535–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Addington EL, Cheung EO, Bassett SM, Kwok I, Schuette SA, Shiu E, et al. The MARIGOLD study: feasibility and enhancement of an online intervention to improve emotion regulation in people with elevated depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2019;257:352–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Moskowitz JT, Hult JR, Duncan LG, Cohn MA, Maurer S, Bussolari C, et al. A positive affect intervention for people experiencing health-related stress: development and non-randomized pilot test. J Health Psychol. 2012;17(5):676–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Verstaen A, Moskowitz JT, Snowberg KE, Merrilees J, Dowling GA. Life Enhancing activities for Family caregivers of people with dementia: protocol for a randomized controlled trial of a positive affect skills intervention. Open Access J Clin Trials. 2018;10:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schueller SM. Personality fit and positive interventions: Extraverted and introverted individuals benefit from different happiness increasing strategies. Psychology. 2012;03(12):1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Moskowitz JT. Positive affect at the onset of chronic illness: planting the seeds of resilience. Handbook of adult resilience. New York, NY, US: The Guilford; 2010. pp. 465–83.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cohn MA, Pietrucha ME, Saslow LR, Hult JR, Moskowitz JT. An online positive affect skills intervention reduces depression in adults with type 2 diabetes. J Posit Psychol. 2014;9(6):523–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Neff K. Self-Compassion: an alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self Identity. 2003;2(2):85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moskowitz JT, Carrico AW, Duncan LG, Cohn MA, Cheung EO, Batchelder A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a positive affect intervention for people newly diagnosed with HIV. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017;85:409–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Cheong J, Mackinnon DP, Khoo ST. Investigation of mediational processes using parallel process latent growth curve modeling. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2003;10(2):238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Bauer DJ, Preacher KJ, Gil KM. Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2006;11(2):142–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Preacher KJ, Zyphur MJ, Zhang Z. A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(3):209–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Williams J. Confidence limits for the Indirect Effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivar Behav Res. 2004;39(1):99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Preacher KJ, Selig JP. Advantages of Monte Carlo Confidence Intervals for Indirect effects. Commun Methods Meas. 2012;6(2):77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Moskowitz JT, Cheung EO, Snowberg KE, Verstaen A, Merrilees J, Salsman JM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a facilitated online positive emotion regulation intervention for dementia caregivers. Health Psychol off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2019;38(5):391–402.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rast P, Hofer SM. Longitudinal design considerations to optimize power to detect variances and covariances among rates of change: Simulation results based on actual longitudinal studies. Psychol Methods. 2014;19(1):133–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hertzog C, Lindenberger U, Ghisletta P, von Oertzen T. On the power of multivariate latent growth curve models to detect correlated change. Psychol Methods. 2006;11(3):244–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fritz MS, MacKinnon DP. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychol Sci. 2007;18(3):233–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Beach KD, Washburn EK, Gesel SA, Williams P. Pivoting an Elementary Summer reading intervention to a virtual context in response to COVID-19: an examination of Program Transformation and outcomes. J Educ Stud Placed Risk JESPAR. 2021;26(2):112–34.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Borelli WV, Augustin MC, de Oliveira PBF, Reggiani LC, Bandeira-de-Mello RG, Schumacher-Schuh AF, et al. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Dementia Associated with increased psychological distress in caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Alzheimers Dis JAD. 2021;80(4):1705–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chattillion EA, Mausbach BT, Roepke SK, Von Känel R, Mills PJ, Dimsdale JE, et al. Leisure activities, caregiving demands and catecholamine levels in dementia caregivers. Psychol Health. 2012;27(10):1134–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gouin JP, Glaser R, Malarkey WB, Beversdorf D, Kiecolt-Glaser J. Chronic stress, daily stressors, and circulating inflammatory markers. Health Psychol off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2012;31(2):264–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kiecolt-Glaser JK, Marucha PT, Malarkey WB, Mercado AM, Glaser R. Slowing of wound healing by psychological stress. Lancet Lond Engl. 1995;346(8984):1194–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Schulz R, Beach SR. Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: the Caregiver Health effects Study. JAMA. 1999;282(23):2215–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Schulz R, Martire LM. Family caregiving of persons with dementia: prevalence, health effects, and support strategies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry off J Am Assoc Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;12(3):240–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stall NM, Campbell A, Reddy M, Rochon PA. Words Matter: the Language of Family Caregiving. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(10):2008–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hayden LJ, Glynn SM, Hahn TJ, Randall F, Randolph E. The use of internet technology for psychoeducation and support with dementia caregivers. Psychol Serv. 2012;9(2):215–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Leng M, Zhao Y, Xiao H, Li C, Wang Z. Internet-based supportive interventions for family caregivers of people with dementia: systematic review and Meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(9):e19468.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Maguire R, Hynes S, Seebacher B, Block VJ, Zackowski KM, Jonsdottir J, et al. Research interrupted: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on multiple sclerosis research in the field of rehabilitation and quality of life. Mult Scler J - Exp Transl Clin. 2021;7(3):20552173211038030.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Sathian B, Asim M, Banerjee I, Pizarro AB, Roy B, van Teijlingen ER, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on clinical trials and clinical research: a systematic review. Nepal J Epidemiol. 2020;10(3):878–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Schnoll R, Bernstein SL, Kaufman A, Gross R, Catz SL, Cioe PA, et al. COVID-19 challenges confronted by Smoking Cessation clinical trials for people living with HIV: the experience of Grantees of the US National Cancer Institute. Nicotine Tob Res. 2021;23(9):1629–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Muldrew DHL, Fee A, Coates V. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family carers in the community: a scoping review. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(4):1275–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Salsman JM, Lai JS, Hendrie HC, Butt Z, Zill N, Pilkonis PA, et al. Assessing psychological well-being: self-report instruments for the NIH Toolbox. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2014;23(1):205–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Fredrickson BL. Chapter One - Positive Emotions Broaden and Build. In: Devine P, Plant A, editors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology [Internet]. Academic Press; 2013 [cited 2024 Jan 23]. p. 1–53. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124072367000012.

  57. Almeida DM, Wethington E, Kessler RC. The daily inventory of stressful events: an interview-based approach for measuring daily stressors. Assessment. 2002;9(1):41–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pilkonis PA, Choi SW, Reise SP, Stover AM, Riley WT, Cella D, et al. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the patient-reported outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment. 2011;18(3):263–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Pilkonis PA, Yu L, Dodds NE, Johnston KL, Maihoefer CC, Lawrence SM. Validation of the depression item bank from the patient-reported outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in a three-month observational study. J Psychiatr Res. 2014;56:112–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Schalet BD, Cook KF, Choi SW, Cella D. Establishing a common metric for self-reported anxiety: linking the MASQ, PANAS, and GAD-7 to PROMIS anxiety. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(1):88–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Brasseur S, Grégoire J, Bourdu R, Mikolajczak M. O García editor 2013 The Profile of Emotional competence (PEC): development and validation of a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence theory. PLoS ONE 8 5 e62635.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mikolajczak M, Brasseur S, Fantini-Hauwel C. Measuring intrapersonal and interpersonal EQ: the Short Profile of Emotional competence (S-PEC). Personal Individ Differ. 2014;65:42–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wintre MG, Vallance DD. A developmental sequence in the comprehension of emotions: intensity, multiple emotions, and valence. Dev Psychol. 1994;30(4):509–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jiang JM, Seng EK, Zimmerman ME, Sliwinski M, Kim M, Lipton RB. Evaluation of the reliability, validity, and predictive validity of the subscales of the perceived stress scale in older adults. J Alzheimers Dis JAD. 2017;59(3):987–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with Life Scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49(1):71–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Emerson SD, Guhn M, Gadermann AM. Measurement invariance of the satisfaction with Life Scale: reviewing three decades of research. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(9):2251–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lorenzo-Seva U, Calderon C, Ferrando PJ, del Mar Muñoz M, Beato C, Ghanem I, et al. Psychometric properties and factorial analysis of invariance of the satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(5):1255–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Salsman JM, Park CL, Hahn EA, Snyder MA, George LS, Steger MF, et al. Refining and supplementing candidate measures of psychological well-being for the NIH PROMIS®: qualitative results from a mixed cancer sample. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2018;27(9):2471–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Salsman JM, Schalet BD, Park CL, George L, Steger MF, Hahn EA, et al. Assessing meaning & purpose in life: development and validation of an item bank and short forms for the NIH PROMIS®. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil. 2020;29(8):2299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Buysse DJ, Yu L, Moul DE, Germain A, Stover A, Dodds NE, et al. Development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairments. Sleep. 2010;33(6):781–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Yu L, Buysse DJ, Germain A, Moul DE, Stover A, Dodds NE, et al. Development of short forms from the PROMIS™ sleep disturbance and sleep-related impairment item banks. Behav Sleep Med. 2011;10(1):6–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Raes F, Pommier E, Neff KD, Van Gucht D. Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2011;18(3):250–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Christopher MS, Neuser NJ, Michael PG, Baitmangalkar A. Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Mindfulness. 2012;3(2):124–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cheng ST, Kwok T, Lam LCW. Dimensionality of burden in Alzheimer caregivers: confirmatory factor analysis and correlates of the Zarit Burden interview. Int Psychogeriatr. 2014;1–9.

  75. Schreiner AS, Morimoto T, Arai Y, Zarit S. Assessing family caregiver’s mental health using a statistically derived cut-off score for the Zarit Burden interview. Aging Ment Health. 2006;10(2):107–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Bakas T, Austin JK, Jessup SL, Williams LS, Oberst MT. Time and difficulty of tasks provided by family caregivers of stroke survivors. J Neurosci Nurs J Am Assoc Neurosci Nurses. 2004;36(2):95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tarlow BJ, Wisniewski SR, Belle SH, Rubert M, Ory MG, Gallagher-Thompson D. Positive aspects of caregiving: contributions of the REACH Project to the development of New measures for Alzheimer’s caregiving. Res Aging. 2004;26(4):429–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Struchen MA, Atchison TB, Roebuck TM, Caroselli JS, Sander AM. A multidimensional measure of Caregiving Appraisal: validation of the Caregiver Appraisal Scale in Traumatic Brain Injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 2002;17(2):132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Jansen AP, van Hout HP, van Marwijk HW, Nijpels G, Gundy C, Vernooij-Dassen MJ, et al. Sense of competence questionnaire among informal caregivers of older adults with dementia symptoms: a psychometric evaluation. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health CP EMH. 2007;3:11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Clark CM, Ewbank DC. Performance of the Dementia Severity Rating Scale: a Caregiver Questionnaire for Rating Severity in Alzheimer Disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 1996 Spring;10(1):31–9.

  81. Logsdon RG, Gibbons LE, McCurry SM, Teri L. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease: patient and caregiver reports. J Ment Health Aging. 1999;5:21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Teri L, Truax P, Logsdon R, Uomoto J, Zarit S, Vitaliano PP. Assessment of behavioral problems in dementia: the revised memory and behavior problems checklist. Psychol Aging. 1992;7(4):622–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Fernald DH, Froshaug DB, Dickinson LM, Balasubramanian BA, Dodoo MS, Holtrop JS, et al. Common measures, Better outcomes (COMBO): a field test of brief Health Behavior measures in Primary Care. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(5, Supplement):414–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Sin NL, Moskowitz JT, Whooley MA. Positive Affect and Health Behaviors across 5 years in patients with Coronary Heart Disease: the Heart and Soul Study. Psychosom Med. 2015;77(9):1058–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Reis HT, Crasta D, Rogge RD, Maniaci MR, Carmichael CL. Perceived Partner Responsiveness Scale (PPRS). In: The Sourcebook of Listening Research [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017 [cited 2024 Jan 23]. p. 516–21. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119102991.ch57.

  87. Brooke JSUS. A Quick and Dirty Usability Scale. In: Usability Evaluation In Industry. 1996.

  88. Folkman S, Moskowitz JT, Ozer EM, Park CL. Positive Meaningful Events and Coping in the Context of HIV/AIDS. In: Gottlieb BH, editor. Coping with Chronic Stress [Internet]. Boston, MA: Springer US; 1997 [cited 2024 Jan 23]. p. 293–314. (The Springer Series on Stress and Coping). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9862-3_11.

  89. Klaiber P, Wen JH, DeLongis A, Sin NL. The ups and downs of daily life during COVID-19: age differences in affect, stress, and positive events. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2020;gbaa096.

  90. Lewinsohn PM, Amenson CS. Some relations between pleasant and unpleasant mood-related events and depression. J Abnorm Psychol. 1978;87(6):644–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Panaite V, Devendorf AR, Kashdan TB, Rottenberg J. Daily life positive events predict well-being among depressed adults 10 years later. Clin Psychol Sci. 2021;9(2):222–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zautra AJ, Reich JW. Life events and perceptions of life quality: developments in a two-factor approach. J Community Psychol. 1983;11(2):121–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Langston CA. Capitalizing on and coping with daily-life events: expressive responses to positive events. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(6):1112–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Bryant FB, Veroff J, Savoring US.; 2007 [cited 2024 Jan 23]. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315088426/savoring-fred-bryant-joseph-veroff.

  95. Cregg DR, Cheavens JS. Gratitude interventions: effective Self-help? A Meta-analysis of the impact on symptoms of depression and anxiety. J Happiness Stud. 2021;22(1):413–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Emmons RA. Thanks! How the New Science of Gratitude can make you happier. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2007. p. 268.

  97. Emmons RA, McCullough ME. Counting blessings versus burdens: an experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(2):377–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2003;10(2):144–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Grossman P, Tiefenthaler-Gilmer U, Raysz A, Kesper U. Mindfulness training as an intervention for fibromyalgia: evidence of postintervention and 3-year follow-up benefits in well-being. Psychother Psychosom. 2007;76(4):226–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Folkman S, Stress. Appraisal and Coping. In: Gellman MD, Turner JR, editors. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine [Internet]. New York, NY: Springer; 2013 [cited 2024 Jan 23]. p. 1913–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_215.

  101. Carver CS, Scheier MF. Situational coping and coping dispositions in a stressful transaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;66(1):184–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Rompilla DB Jr, Hittner EF, Stephens JE, Mauss I, Haase CM. Emotion regulation in the face of loss: how detachment, positive reappraisal, and acceptance shape experiences, physiology, and perceptions in late life. Emotion. 2022;22(7):1417–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Sears MR, Greene JM, Willan AR, Wiecek EM, Taylor DR, Flannery EM, et al. A longitudinal, population-based, cohort study of childhood asthma followed to adulthood. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(15):1414–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Wang K, Goldenberg A, Dorison CA, Miller JK, Uusberg A, Lerner JS, et al. A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(8):1089–110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. McKay T, Walker BR. Mindfulness, self-compassion and wellbeing. Personal Individ Differ. 2021;168:110412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Quinlan D, Vella-Brodrick D, Gray A, Swain N. Teachers Matter: Student outcomes following a Strengths intervention are mediated by teacher strengths spotting. J Happiness Stud. 2019;20.

  107. Taylor SE, Lerner JS, Sherman DK, Sage RM, McDowell NK. Are self-enhancing cognitions associated with healthy or unhealthy biological profiles? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(4):605–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Emmons RA. Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(5):1058–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Emmons RA. Abstract versus concrete goals: personal striving level, physical illness, and psychological well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;62(2):292–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Ouweneel E, Le Blanc PM, Schaufeli WB. Do-it-yourself: an online positive psychology intervention to promote positive emotions, self-efficacy, and engagement at work. Career Dev Int. 2013;18(2):173–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Research reported in this manuscript was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01 AG058613. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois USA, USA

    Caroline A. Leong, Amanda Summers, Veronika Grote, Kathryn Jackson, Elizabeth L. Addington & Judith T. Moskowitz

  2. Unversity of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Glenna Dowling, Kari Snowberg & Paul Cotten

  3. BrightOutcome, Chicago, IL, USA

    DerShung Yang

  4. Hinge Labs, New York, USA

    Elaine Cheung

Authors
  1. Caroline A. Leong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda Summers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Veronika Grote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Glenna Dowling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kari Snowberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul Cotten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elaine Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. DerShung Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Elizabeth L. Addington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Judith T. Moskowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CL, AS, and VG drafted the manuscript and prepared figures. JM designed the study. All authors made contributions to the paper, provided comments and critical revisions, are in agreement with the content, and read the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline A. Leong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures and amendments were approved and monitored by the Institutional Review Boards (IRB) at Northwestern (FWA number 00001549 (Expiration: 12/14/2026)). The study number is STU00206756, version 14 dated 7/18/2022. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03610698.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leong, C.A., Summers, A., Grote, V. et al. Randomized controlled trial of a positive emotion regulation intervention to reduce stress in family caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: protocol and design for the LEAF 2.0 study. BMC Geriatr 24, 289 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04817-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04817-5

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us