Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The study aimed to develop a psychoeducation intervention program for formal female caregivers and test its feasibility and acceptability. This paper follows the program development model as its intervention development framework, presenting the planning and development phase and the feasibility and acceptability testing of the psychoeducation program for formal female caregivers. In the first phase of the study, program planning and development, we determined the program components using qualitative data, including a review of related literature, theoretical foundation, needs assessment, and thematic analysis. The study population consisted of 25 participants who were formal female caregivers, subject matter experts, and expert evaluators, purposively selected for program planning and development, as well as the pilot run. Among them, 7 formal caregivers were interviewed individually and later joined the focus group discussion. The 3 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) were invited to individual interviews to gain insights on interventional approaches appropriate for formal caregivers. Themes elicited from individual interviews and focus group discussions were analyzed thematically. Related literature was also reviewed and served as a basis for determining the Caregiving Stress Model and the Cognitive Behavioral Theory as theoretical bases. All 17 participants who were formal female caregivers completed the needs assessment using the Caregiver Burden Inventory and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. In the second phase of the study, the focus is on assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the program developed. Thus, 5 expert evaluators participated in evaluating the developed program. They were all licensed psychologists who were involved in program development. The 10 formal female caregivers were invited to try out the developed program and were asked for their feedback and suggestions to improve it. The efficacy of the psychoeducation intervention is reserved for subsequent research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cabantug et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: