Mejora de la Comunicación Familiar en Adultos Mayores: Un Ensayo Piloto Aleatorizado Controlado (ReFrame-P)
2 de septiembre de 2026 actualizado por: YU Yee Man Branda, The University of Hong Kong
Evaluación Piloto de ReFrame-R: Un Entrenamiento en Comunicación para Replantear los Roles Familiares de los Adultos Mayores y Promover el Envejecimiento Activo
Este estudio evalúa la efectividad de "ReFrame-R", un programa de formación en comunicación diseñado para ayudar a los adultos mayores en Hong Kong a navegar por los desafíos intergeneracionales.
Al centrarse en mejorar la competencia comunicativa y clarificar los límites de los roles dentro de las relaciones padre-hijo, la investigación busca determinar si esta intervención especializada puede mejorar el bienestar mental tanto de las generaciones mayores como de las más jóvenes.
El estudio plantea si participar en el currículo de "ReFrame-R" conduce a mejoras medibles en cómo interactúan las familias, hipotetizando que los adultos mayores en el grupo de formación demostrarán una calidad de comunicación significativamente mejor y un sentido de significado más fuerte en comparación con aquellos en un grupo de control.
Este estudio también tiene como objetivo evaluar la viabilidad y aceptabilidad general del programa.
Descripción general del estudio
Estado
Activo, no reclutando
Condiciones
Intervención / Tratamiento
Tipo de estudio
Intervencionista
Inscripción (Actual)
42
Fase
- No aplica
Contactos y Ubicaciones
Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.
Ubicaciones de estudio
-
-
-
Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 000000
- The University of Hong Kong
-
-
Criterios de participación
Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.
Criterio de elegibilidad
Edades elegibles para estudiar
- Adulto
- Adulto Mayor
Acepta Voluntarios Saludables
No
Descripción
Criterios de inclusión:
- Adultos mayores que hablan cantonés
- Tienen contacto regular con hijos adultos
- Pueden comprender chino tradicional
Criterios de exclusión:
- Diagnóstico conocido de salud mental
- Síntomas depresivos leves o superiores (puntuación ≥5 en el Cuestionario de Salud del Paciente [PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001; Manea et al., 2015])
- Dificultades de comunicación
Plan de estudios
Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.
¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?
Detalles de diseño
- Propósito principal: Otro
- Asignación: Aleatorizado
- Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación paralela
- Enmascaramiento: Único
Armas e Intervenciones
Grupo de participantes/brazo |
Intervención / Tratamiento |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Formación ReFrame-R
El ReFrame-R consta de cuatro sesiones grupales semanales de 90 minutos (total 6 horas), complementadas con breves consultas individuales semanales para solucionar obstáculos y reforzar la práctica en casa.
Adaptado de un protocolo de MI existente para legos (Kline et al., 2022), el programa se basa en la Teoría de Sistemas Familiares para abordar las dinámicas de sobre/subfuncionamiento en las relaciones entre padres mayores e hijos adultos, al mismo tiempo que enfatiza la escucha empática y la comunicación que apoya la autonomía.
Se distribuirá un folleto de habilidades de MI para apoyar y registrar la práctica en casa.
|
El programa ReFrame-R está adaptado de un protocolo establecido de Entrevista Motivacional (MI) para legos (Kline et al., 2022).
Fundado en la Teoría de Sistemas Familiares, el currículo aborda específicamente las dinámicas de sobrefuncionamiento y subfuncionamiento que a menudo se encuentran en las díadas de padres mayores e hijos adultos y el contexto cultural específico de Hong Kong.
A diferencia de los talleres de comunicación generales, este programa enfatiza los límites de roles dentro de la relación padre-hijo adulto.
|
|
Sin intervención: Grupo de control
Los participantes del grupo de control no recibirán formación activa durante el periodo de estudio.
Se les proporcionará el mismo folleto de habilidades de MI para consulta y práctica autodirigida.
|
¿Qué mide el estudio?
Medidas de resultado primarias
Medida de resultado |
Medida Descripción |
Periodo de tiempo |
|---|---|---|
|
Perceived communication competence
Periodo de tiempo: Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
Participants' self-perceived communication competence is assessed using an 11-item scale adapted from the Family Communication Scale (FCS).
The scale consists of 10 items adapted from the original FCS to measure perceived ability to engage in positive communication with adult children, plus an additional item regarding overall communicagtion competence.
Each item is rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with a total score ranging from 11 to 55. Higher scores indicate a higher level of perceived communication competence.
|
Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
|
Meaning in life
Periodo de tiempo: Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
The 10-item Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ; Steger et al., 2006) is used.
It consists of two subscales: presence of meaning (5 items) and search of meaning (5 items).
Each subscale is rated on a 7-point scale, with summed scores are calculated (ranged 5-35 for each).
Higher scores indicate stronger sense of purpose and motivation to find meaning, respectively.
|
Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
Medidas de resultado secundarias
Medida de resultado |
Medida Descripción |
Periodo de tiempo |
|---|---|---|
|
Self-efficacy
Periodo de tiempo: Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
Participants' self-efficacy will be assessed using the 6-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6; Romppel et al., 2013).
It is typically rated on a 4-point scale from 1 to 4. Total scores range from 6 to 24, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived self-efficacy.
|
Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
|
Well-being
Periodo de tiempo: Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
The 5-item WHO Well-Being Index will be adopted for measuring participants' subjective well-being (Bech, 1998; Kong et al., 2016), rated on a 7-point scale.
The WHO-5 score ranges from 0 to 25, zero representing worst possible mental well-being and 25 representing best possible mental well-being.
|
Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
|
Role boundaries
Periodo de tiempo: Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
We used a 5-item scale adapted from the Control subscale of the Parent-Adult Child Relationship Questionnaire's Relationship with Father component (PACQF; Peisah et al., 1999).
While the original scale assess children's perceptions of parental conrtol, this adapted version is a self-report measure for parent to assess their attempt to maintain power, influence, or dominance over their adult children.
Each item is rated on a 5-point scale, with a total score ranging 5-25.
Higher scores indicater higher levels of parent control, reflecting weaker awareness of role boundaries in parent-adult children relationship.
|
Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
|
Family functioning
Periodo de tiempo: Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
The 5-item Family Adaption, Partnership, Growth, Affection, Resolve questionnaire (Family APGAR; Chan et al., 1988; Smilkstein, 1978) is used.
This scale assesses participants' satisfaction with five aspects of family function.
Each item is rated on a 3-point scale (0-2), with a total score ranged from 0 to 10. Higher scores indicate better family functioning.
|
Both groups: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up); Intervention group only: 4 months post-training
|
|
Training appropriateness
Periodo de tiempo: Week 6 (2 week follow-up)
|
We used the 4-item Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from Weiner et al (2017) to access training appropriateness.
All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with an average score being calculated.
Higher scores indicate greater perceived appropriateness of training.
|
Week 6 (2 week follow-up)
|
|
Training acceptability
Periodo de tiempo: Week 6 (2 week follow-up)
|
The 4-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) from Weiner et al (2017) is adopted to access training appropriateness.
All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with an average score being calculated.
Higher scores indicate greater perceived acceptability of training.
|
Week 6 (2 week follow-up)
|
|
Training feasibility
Periodo de tiempo: Week 4 (end of training)
|
This study used the 4-item Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) from Weiner et al (2017) to access training feasibility.
All items are rated on a 5-point scale (1-5), with an average score being calculated.
Higher scores indicate greater perceived feasibility of training.
|
Week 4 (end of training)
|
Colaboradores e Investigadores
Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.
Patrocinador
Publicaciones y enlaces útiles
La persona responsable de ingresar información sobre el estudio proporciona voluntariamente estas publicaciones. Estos pueden ser sobre cualquier cosa relacionada con el estudio.
Publicaciones Generales
- Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001 Sep;16(9):606-13. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.
- Whitehead AL, Julious SA, Cooper CL, Campbell MJ. Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable. Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Jun;25(3):1057-73. doi: 10.1177/0962280215588241. Epub 2015 Jun 19.
- Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, Boynton MH, Halko H. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017 Aug 29;12(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3.
- Romppel M, Herrmann-Lingen C, Wachter R, Edelmann F, Dungen HD, Pieske B, Grande G. A short form of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE-6): Development, psychometric properties and validity in an intercultural non-clinical sample and a sample of patients at risk for heart failure. Psychosoc Med. 2013;10:Doc01. doi: 10.3205/psm000091. Epub 2013 Feb 20.
- Yu, Y. M. B., Lam, C., & Chan, C. S. (2024). All We Need is Love? Irreconcilable Political Incongruence in Families after the 2019 Social Unrest in Hong Kong. Political Psychology, 45, 643-665. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12941
- Youth Research Centre. (2019). Strengthening Intergenerational Understanding (Society and Livelihood, Issue. The Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups. https://yrc.hkfyg.org.hk/2019/12/09/yi048
- Xiao, C. (2023). A comparative review of communication differences between Chinese and American families in child upbringing. Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies, 2(3), 50-57. https://doi.org/10.56397/JLCS.2023.09.07
- Wu, M. Y. (2023). The concept of guan in the Chinese parent-child relationship. In C. C. Yi (Ed.), The psychological well-being of East Asian youth (pp. 29-49). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2081494
- The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong. (2023). Annual Report for 2023. https://sbhk.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ESBHK2023_Annual-Report_low-res.pdf
- Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80-93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
- Sánchez-Cazalla, V., & Gutiérrez-Domingo, T. (2025). Impact of intergenerational programmes on older adults for active ageing. A systematic review. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus, 2(3), 100176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aggp.2025.100176
- Pew Research Center. (2024, January 25). Young adults' relationship with their parents (Parents, Young Adult Children and the Transition to Adulthood, Issue. P. R. Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/01/25/young-adults-relationship-with-their-parents/
- Peisah, C., Brodaty, H., Luscombe, G., Kruk, J., & Anstey, K. (1999). The Parent Adult-Child Relationship Questionnaire (PACQ): The assessment of the relationship of adult children to their parents. Aging & mental health, 3(1), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607869956415
- Olson, D. H., & Barnes, H. L. (2004). "Family communication". In D. H. Olson, D. M. Gorall, & J. W. Tiesel (Eds.), Faces IV package (pp. 1-9). Life Innovations.
- Nelson, L. J., Duan, X. X., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Luster, S. S. (2013). Facing adulthood: Comparing the criteria that Chinese emerging adults and their parents have for adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 28(2), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558412467685
- Moon, H., Park, T., Park, Y., Bae, Y., & Chi, C. (2024). Psychological Dynamics in the Development Process of Panic Disorder: A Qualitative Study on a Family Therapy Case. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 54(3), 225-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-024-09616-y
- Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford Press.
- Marquez, M. P. N. (2019). Family Support and Intergenerational Exchanges. In G. T. Cruz, C. J. P. Cruz, & Y. Saito (Eds.), Ageing and Health in The Philippines. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.
- Luk, K. W., & Joe-Laidler, K. (2023). Care and Control Revisited: Parent-Youth Co-residence and the Negotiation of Adulthood in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth Studies, 26(10), 1273-1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2022.2081494
- Lo Cricchio, M. G., Lo Coco, A., Cheah, C. S., & Liga, F. (2019). The good parent: Southern Italian mothers' conceptualization of good parenting and parent-child relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 40(12), 1583-1603. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19842598
- Li, X. (2021). How do Chinese fathers express love? Viewing paternal warmth through the eyes of Chinese fathers, mothers, and their children. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(3), 500-511. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000312
- Hooker, S. A., Masters, K. S., Vagnini, K. M., & Rush, C. L. (2020). Engaging in personally meaningful activities is associated with meaning salience and psychological well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(6), 821-831. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651895
- Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department. (2023). Hong Kong Population Projections for 2022 to 2046 (Hong Kong Population Projections, Issue. HKSAR government. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?scode=190&pcode=FA100061
- Ho, H. C., Mui, M., Wan, A., Stewart, S. M., Yew, C., Lam, T. H., & Chan, S. S. (2017). Happy Family Kitchen: Behavioral outcomes of a brief community-based family intervention in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(10), 2852-2864.
- Chan, D., Ho, S., & Donnan, S. (1988). A survey of family APGAR in Shatin private ownership homes. Hong Kong Practitioner, 10, 3295-3299.
- Caldwell-Harris, C., Kronrod, A., & Yang, J. (2013). Do more, say less: Saying "I love you" in Chinese and American cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics, 10(1), 41-69. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2013-0002
- Bordone, V., & Arpino, B. (2019). Grandparenthood, grandchild care and depression among older people in 18 countries. Journal of Family Research, 31(2/2019), 216-239. https://doi.org/10.3224/zff.v31i2.06
- Ahmed, S. K., Mohammed, R. A., Nashwan, A. J., Ibrahim, R. H., Abdalla, A. Q., Ameen, B. M. M., & Khdhir, R. M. (2025). Using thematic analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health, 6, 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2025.100198
- Wang YL, Wang YH, Leung DKY, Wong SMY, Ng ZLY, Chan RCL, Chan OLH, Chan WC, Wong GHY, Lum TYS. Peer-supported mindfulness-based intervention for managing depressive symptoms in community-dwelling older adults: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2025 Aug;155:107991. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2025.107991. Epub 2025 Jun 20.
- Tsai FJ. The maintaining and improving effect of grandchild care provision on elders' mental health-Evidence from longitudinal study in Taiwan. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016 May-Jun;64:59-65. doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2016.01.009. Epub 2016 Jan 16.
- Tierney L, Beattie E. Enjoyable, engaging and individualised: A concept analysis of meaningful activity for older adults with dementia. Int J Older People Nurs. 2020 Jun;15(2):e12306. doi: 10.1111/opn.12306. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
- Smilkstein G. The family APGAR: a proposal for a family function test and its use by physicians. J Fam Pract. 1978 Jun;6(6):1231-9. No abstract available.
- Plys E, Jacobs ML, Allen RS, Arch JJ. Psychological flexibility in older adulthood: a scoping review. Aging Ment Health. 2023 Mar;27(3):453-465. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2022.2036948. Epub 2022 Feb 15.
- Miller EA, Elder CR. Balanced parenting: Proposing a differentiation-based parenting approach informed by Bowen family systems theory. Fam Process. 2025 Mar;64(1):e13092. doi: 10.1111/famp.13092. Epub 2024 Dec 8.
- Manea L, Gilbody S, McMillan D. A diagnostic meta-analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) algorithm scoring method as a screen for depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2015 Jan-Feb;37(1):67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.09.009. Epub 2014 Sep 23.
- Liu Y. The relationship and heterogeneity of family participation and social participation among older adults: from an intersectionality perspective. BMC Geriatr. 2024 Nov 15;24(1):949. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05545-6.
- Kong CL, Lee CC, Ip YC, Chow LP, Leung CH, Lam YC. Validation of the Hong Kong Cantonese Version of World Health Organization Five Well-Being Index for People with Severe Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;26(1):18-21.
- Kline ER, Thibeau H, Davis BJ, Fenley A, Sanders AS, Ipekci B, Oblath R, Yen S, Keshavan MS. Motivational interviewing for loved ones: Randomized controlled trial of brief training for first episode psychosis caregivers. Schizophr Res. 2022 Dec;250:43-49. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2022.10.005. Epub 2022 Oct 21.
- Irving J, Davis S, Collier A. Aging With Purpose: Systematic Search and Review of Literature Pertaining to Older Adults and Purpose. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2017 Dec;85(4):403-437. doi: 10.1177/0091415017702908. Epub 2017 Apr 10.
- Dong X, Ling H, Yang T, Wang K. Grandchild care and life satisfaction of older adults: Empirical evidence from China. Front Psychol. 2023 Feb 6;14:1081559. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1081559. eCollection 2023.
- Campbell F, Whear R, Rogers M, Sutton A, Robinson-Carter E, Barlow J, Sharpe R, Cohen S, Wolstenholme L, Thompson-Coon J. Non-familial intergenerational interventions and their impact on social and mental wellbeing of both younger and older people-A mapping review and evidence and gap map. Campbell Syst Rev. 2023 Feb 16;19(1):e1306. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1306. eCollection 2023 Mar.
- Boreham ID, Schutte NS. The relationship between purpose in life and depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2023 Dec;79(12):2736-2767. doi: 10.1002/jclp.23576. Epub 2023 Aug 12.
- AshaRani PV, Lai D, Koh J, Subramaniam M. Purpose in Life in Older Adults: A Systematic Review on Conceptualization, Measures, and Determinants. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 11;19(10):5860. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19105860.
Fechas de registro del estudio
Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.
Fechas importantes del estudio
Inicio del estudio (Actual)
23 de marzo de 2026
Finalización primaria (Estimado)
1 de diciembre de 2026
Finalización del estudio (Estimado)
1 de junio de 2027
Fechas de registro del estudio
Enviado por primera vez
16 de marzo de 2026
Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad
19 de marzo de 2026
Publicado por primera vez (Actual)
27 de marzo de 2026
Actualizaciones de registros de estudio
Última actualización publicada (Actual)
9 de septiembre de 2026
Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad
2 de septiembre de 2026
Última verificación
1 de septiembre de 2026
Más información
Términos relacionados con este estudio
Palabras clave
Otros números de identificación del estudio
- EA260121
- 2501262488 (Otro número de subvención/financiamiento: The University of Hong Kong)
Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)
¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?
INDECISO
Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio
Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.
No
Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.
No
Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .