1. Objectifs

Intentions :
« The purpose of the present study was to document and evaluate the implementation and process of an individual stress management intervention program for family caregivers of an elderly person and to evaluate its effects on various health and coping outcomes. » (p. 428)

Questions/Hypothèses :
« (a) Do case managers perceive the intervention to be feasible in their daily clinical practice and transferable to other health care situations? (b) How can the intervention process be improved from the perspective of both case managers and family caregivers? (c) What behavioral or attitudinal changes do caregivers perceive in themselves following the intervention? » (pp. 429-430)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
« A total of 35 case managers took part in the project: 17 in the EG and 18 in the CG. They were mostly female (n = 4 men) and had a mean age of 39 years (SD = 7.7, range of 24–54). » (p. 431)

Instruments :
-« The analysis checklist » (p. 432);
- « The case manager semi-structured interview guide » (p. 433);
- « Logs » (p. 433);
- « A caregiver semi-structured interview guide » (p. 433);
- « [T]he Burden Inventory (Zarit et al., 1985) » (p. 433);
- « [T]he Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM; Peacock & Wong, 1990) » (p. 433);
- « [T]he Carers’ Assessment of Managing Index (CAMI; Nolan, Keady, & Grant, 1995) » (p. 433);
- « [T]he Psychological Distress Index, an adaptation of the Psychiatric Symptoms Index (Ilfeld, 1976) » (p. 433-434);
- « [T]he Self-Assessed Health instrument employed in the Quebec Health and Social Survey (Institut de la statistique du Québec, 2000). » (p. 434)
- « [T]he Goal Attainment Scale (GAS; Rockwood, 1995) » (p. 434).

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu et analyse statistique

3. Résumé

« Evaluation of the stress management intervention [...] revealed significant effects on several variables, including perceived challenge and control by self of the situation, perceived control by others (use of informal/formal social support), and use of problem solving as a coping strategy. However, the intervention failed to produce any significant change on perceived burden, selected stress appraisal dimensions, perceived psychological distress, and self-assessed health. Although these results are in line with those of previous studies, particularly for psychological distress (Schulz et al., 2002; Zarit & Leitsch), they suggest that these types of indicators might not be sensitive enough to change. This criticism often has been raised in the literature with the suggestion that proximal or intermediary variables, such as specific coping strategies, learning abilities, or personal resources be targeted instead (Zarit et al., 1999; Zarit & Leitsch). » (pp. 437; 439)