Objective: To enhance participation post stroke through a structured, community-based program. Design: A controlled trial with random allocation to immediate or four-month delayed entry. Setting: Eleven community sites in seven Canadian cities. Subjects: Community dwelling persons within five years of stroke onset, cognitively intact, able to toilet independently. Interventions: Evidence-based program delivered in three 12-week sessions including exercise and project-based activities, done as individuals and in groups. Main measures: Hours spent per week in meaningful activities outside of the home and Reintegration to Normal Living Index; Stroke-Specific Geriatric Depression Scale, Apathy Scale, gait speed, EuroQuol EQ-5D, and Preference-Based Stroke Index. All measures were transformed to a scale from 0 to 100. Assessments prior to randomization, after the first session at three months, six months, 12 months, and 15 months. Results: A total of 186 persons were randomized. The between-group analysis showed no disadvantage to waiting and so groups were combined and a within-person analysis was carried out at three time points. There were statistically significant increases in all study outcomes on average over all persons. Over 45% of people met or exceeded the pre-specified target of a three hour per week increase in meaningful activity and this most often took a full year of intervention to achieve. Greatest gains were in satisfaction with community integration (mean 4.78; 95% CI: 2.01 to 7.55) and stroke-specific health-related quality of life (mean 4.14; 95% CI: 2.31 to 5.97). Conclusions: Community-based programs targeting participation are feasible and effective, but stroke survivors require time to achieve meaningful gains.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, earlier acute care patient discharges, restricted admissions to long-term care, and reduced home care services increased the amount and complexity of family caregivers’ care work. However, much less is known about rural caregivers’ experiences. Thus, our aim in this sequential mixed-methods study was to understand how COVID-19 affected rural family caregivers. Thematically analyzed interviews and linear regression on survey data were used to understand family caregiver stress. Fourteen rural caregivers participated in interviews. They acknowledged that they benefitted from the circle of support in rural communities; however, they all reported having to cope with fewer healthcare and social services. 126 rural caregivers participated in the online survey. About a third (31%) of these caregivers had moderate frailty, indicating that they could benefit from support to improve their health. In linear regression, frailty, social loneliness, financial hardship, and younger age were associated with caregiver anxiety. Contrary to the qualitative reports that people in rural communities are supportive, over two-thirds of the rural caregivers completing the survey were socially lonely. Rural family caregivers are vulnerable to anxiety and social loneliness due to the nature of caregiving and the lack of healthcare and social service supports in rural areas. Primary healthcare and home care teams are well-positioned to assess caregivers’ health and care situation as well as to signpost them to needed supports that are available in their areas.

Background: While family caregivers provide 70-90% of care for people living in the community and assist with 10-30% of the care in congregate living, most healthcare providers do not meaningfully involve family caregivers as partners in care. Recent research recommends that the healthcare workforce receive competency-based education to identify, assess, support, and partner with family caregivers across the care trajectory. Objective: This paper reports a mixed-methods evaluation of a person-centered competency-based education program on Caregiver-Centered Care for the healthcare workforce. Methods: This foundational education was designed for all healthcare providers and trainees who work with family caregivers and is offered free online (caregivercare.ca). Healthcare providers from five healthcare settings (primary, acute, home, supportive living, long-term care) and trainees in medicine, nursing, and allied health were recruited via email and social media. We used the Kirkpatrick-Barr health workforce training evaluation framework to evaluate the education program, measuring various healthcare providers’ learner satisfaction with the content (Level 1), pre-post changes in knowledge and confidence when working with family caregivers (Level 2), and changes in behaviors in practice (Level 3). Results: Participants were primarily healthcare employees (68.9%) and trainees (21.7%) and represented 5 healthcare settings. Evaluation of the first 161 learners completing the program indicated that on a 5-point Likert scale, the majority were satisfied with the overall quality of the education (Mean(M) = 4.69; SD = .60). Paired T-tests indicated that out of a score of 50, post-education changes in knowledge and confidence to work with family caregivers was significantly higher than pre-education scores (pre M = 38.90, SD = 6.90; post M = 46.60, SD = 4.10; t(150) = − 16.75, p < .0001). Qualitative results derived from open responses echoed the quantitative findings in satisfaction with the education delivery as well as improvements in learners’ knowledge and confidence. Conclusion: Health workforce education to provide person-centered care to all family caregivers is an innovative approach to addressing the current inconsistent system of supports for family caregivers. The education program evaluated here was effective at increasing self-reported knowledge and confidence to work with family caregivers.