ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
A Process Evaluation of the UK Randomised Trial Evaluating 'iSupport', an Online e-Health Intervention for Adult Carers of People Living with Dementia.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Supporting dementia carers is a global priority. As a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) (n = 352) of the Word Health Organization recommended, an internationally disseminated 'iSupport' e-health intervention was conducted, revealing no measurable benefits to the wellbeing of adult dementia carers. This process evaluation contributes original insights of the trial outcomes. Its aims were to ascertain the usability and acceptability of iSupport, participant engagement and adherence to iSupport, and contextual factors influencing its implementation and potential impact. The process evaluation followed a mixed-method design. The following data were collected from all participants randomised to iSupport (n = 175): (1) post-intervention evaluation questionnaire (n = 93) containing the 10-item System Usability Scale and bespoke items exploring acceptability, engagement, and perceived impact; (2) qualitative interviews (n = 52) with a sub-sample of participants who were purposively sampled according to age, scores on the outcome measures, and gender, as these interviews aimed to generate contextual detail and explanatory accounts; and (3) 'Access' data from the iSupport platform (n = 175). Descriptive statistics was used to report on the frequency of survey responses whilst a thematic analysis approach was followed to identify themes from the qualitative interview data. Data sets were analysed independently and then used with respect to one another in order to generate explanatory pathways related to the usability, acceptability, and the impact of iSupport. Despite good trial retention, 8.3% of participants (n = 32) did not spend any time on iSupport, and 54% (n = 94) spent between 30 min and 1.5 h. Factors driving this were the following: time constrains, method of delivery, and content characteristics. Positive impacts of iSupport were also described. Participants, including those with extensive caring experience, reported how iSupport had made them feel reassured, valued, and more able to ask for help. They also reported having an improved outlook on their caring role and on the needs and feelings of the person living with dementia. Research and practice should focus on exploring blended delivery, including self-directed and interactive components, such as regular contact with a health professional. These insights are critical for supporting the global implementation and adaptation of iSupport and offer valuable directions for future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.