Home › Research › Caregiving
Co-design, Cultural Adaptation, and Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Carer Support Program for Chinese Australian Dementia Carers
Wong L, Kwok C, KOO FK, Tang C, Chenoweth L, CHANG H(.. Research Square, 2026-07-28
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Aim This study aimed to (1) develop and implement a co-designed, culturally adapted Carer Support Program (CSP) for Chinese Australian carers of people with dementia using a community partnership approach, and (2) evaluate the CSP’s effectiveness for carer self-efficacy, burden, quality of life and approach to dementia care. Design: A sequential three-phase design was undertaken in developing, implementing and evaluating the CSP, using mixed-methods, integrating a one-group quasi-experimental pre–post design and qualitative follow-up. Methods Chinese Australian carers (N = 48) completed the eight-week CSP delivered in Chinese through weekly 90-minute face-to-face group sessions. Carers completed questionnaires before and after the CSP and participated in follow-up focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data were separately analysed, then integrated. Results Carer self-efficacy significantly improved following the CSP (p = 0.007). No significant changes occurred in carer burden, health-related quality of life, or dementia care approach. Language barriers were associated with poorer physical health (p = 0.021), while greater social support was associated with lower carer burden (p = 0.016). Qualitative data identified four themes: unseen challenges of caregiving; knowledge and experiences leading to stronger self-confidence; the power of peer influence on caregiving; and pursuing better support for carers. Peer support was a key mechanism supporting learning and emotional resilience. Conclusion The culturally adapted CSP enhanced self-efficacy among Chinese Australian carers of people with dementia, but not carer burden, quality of life and approach to dementia care. Findings highlight the importance of providing accessible culturally responsive carer support programs, and sustained community-based support for carers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wong, L., Kwok, C., KOO, F. K., Tang, C., & Chenoweth, L. (2026). Co-design, Cultural Adaptation, and Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Carer Support Program for Chinese Australian Dementia Carers. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10491749/v1
Vancouver
Wong L, Kwok C, KOO FK, Tang C, Chenoweth L. Co-design, Cultural Adaptation, and Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Carer Support Program for Chinese Australian Dementia Carers. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10491749/v1.
BibTeX
@article{wong2026-adeac096,
author = {Wong, L. and Kwok, C. and KOO, F. K. and Tang, C. and Chenoweth, L.},
title = {{Co-design, Cultural Adaptation, and Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Carer Support Program for Chinese Australian Dementia Carers}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-10491749/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-10491749/v1}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Carer self-efficacy significantly improved following the CSP (p = 0.007).
- No significant changes occurred in carer burden, health-related quality of life, or dementia care approach.
- Language barriers were associated with poorer physical health (p = 0.021), while greater social support was associated with lower carer burden (p = 0.016).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Caregiving →
Study details
- Participants48
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 27 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 17 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 27 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 48 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 17 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 17 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 27 out of 100. |
| Total | 27 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Caregiving
Also tagged “caregiver”
195 studies in the library carry the topic tag “caregiver”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 195 tagged studies.