NCT06049043: IN-HOME

Testing Preliminary Effectiveness of a Community Health Worker (CHW) Training Program on Caregiving

Completed NA Results posted Last updated 11 April 2025

What this trial tests

NA trial testing Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME) in Caregiver Burnout in 107 participants. Completed in 31 August 2023.

Timeline

22 May 2023

Primary endpoint
15 August 2023

31 August 2023

Quick facts

Lead sponsor	KDH Research & Communication
Phase	NA
Status	Completed
Study type	INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation	randomized
Design	parallel
Masking	none
Primary purpose	other
Enrollment	107
Start date	22 May 2023
Primary completion	15 August 2023
Estimated completion	31 August 2023
Sites	1 location across United States

Drugs / interventions tested

• Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)
• AARP's English "Care at Home" resource webpage

Conditions studied

• Caregiver Burnout — all drugs for Caregiver Burnout →

Sponsor

KDH Research & Communication

Who can join

Adults 18 to 95, any sex, with Caregiver Burnout. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.

Knowledge Pretest Primary · Baseline

We asked participants 16 identically worded knowledge-based multiple-choice questions during the pretest and posttest. For each participant, we averaged their correct scores from these knowledge questions, resulting in a score that ranged from 0 to 100, with 0 as the minimum score and 100 as the maximum score. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. We then averaged these individual scores across all participants to create a composite average knowledge score for group comparisons, also ranging from 0 to 100.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	79.84	± 23.02
Control	84.94	± 16.14

Skills Pretest Primary · Baseline

We asked participants eight identically worded skills-based multiple-choice questions at pretest and posttest. For each participant, we averaged their correct scores from these skills questions, resulting in a score that ranged from 0 to 100, with 0 as the minimum score and 100 as the maximum score. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. We then averaged these individual scores across all participants to create a composite average skills score for group comparisons, also ranging from 0 to 100.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	80.36	± 23.29
Control	84.15	± 20.73

Self-efficacy Pretest Primary · Baseline

We asked participants 15 identically worded questions relating to their perceived self-efficacy/confidence in providing outreach to male caregivers. Each answer choice was a 10-point confidence rating scale, ranging from 1 (not very confident) to 10 (very confident), with higher scores indicating better outcomes. We averaged self-efficacy scores across all self-efficacy questions for each participant, then averaged these scores across all participants for group comparisons.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	7.25	± 2.00
Control	7.03	± 1.93

Knowledge Posttest Primary · 2 weeks

We asked participants 16 identically worded knowledge-based multiple-choice questions during the pretest and posttest. For each participant, we averaged their correct scores from these knowledge questions, resulting in a score that ranged from 0 to 100, with 0 as the minimum score and 100 as the maximum score. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. We then averaged these individual scores across all participants to create a composite average knowledge score for group comparisons, also ranging from 0 to 100.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	89.83	± 20.37
Control	83.48	± 20.61

Skills Posttest Primary · 2 weeks

We asked participants eight identically worded skills-based multiple-choice questions at pretest and posttest. For each participant, we averaged their correct scores from these skills questions, resulting in a score that ranged from 0 to 100, with 0 as the minimum score and 100 as the maximum score. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. We then averaged these individual scores across all participants to create a composite average skills score for group comparisons, also ranging from 0 to 100.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	83.24	± 21.89
Control	81.25	± 21.43

Self-efficacy Posttest Primary · 2 weeks

We asked participants 15 identically worded questions relating to their perceived self-efficacy/confidence in providing outreach to male caregivers. Each answer choice was a 10-point confidence rating scale, ranging from 1 (not very confident) to 10 (very confident), with higher scores indicating better outcomes. We averaged self-efficacy scores across all self-efficacy questions for each participant, then averaged these scores across all participants for group comparisons.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	8.55	± 1.17
Control	8.01	± 1.63

Preparedness Posttest Primary · 2 weeks

We asked participants six identically worded questions relating to their perceived preparedness to deliver male caregiver outreach at pretest and posttest. Each answer choice was a 10-point confidence rating scale, ranging from 1 (not at all prepared) to 10 (very much prepared), with higher scores indicating better outcomes. We averaged scores from each preparedness question for each participant, then averaged these scores across all participants for group comparisons.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	8.61	± 1.28
Control	8.02	± 1.74

Satisfaction Composite Scores at Posttest Secondary · 2/3 weeks

We asked intervention group participants five questions about their satisfaction with IN-HOME at posttest. All five satisfaction questions were ratings assessing the participants' perceptions of ease, relevance, engagement, usefulness, and likeliness to tell others about IN-HOME. Each answer choice ranged from 1 to 10, with 10 representing the highest and 1 representing the lowest rating. We averaged satisfaction ratings across all five questions for each intervention participant and averaged these scores across all intervention participants to create a single composite score ranging from 1 to

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	8.91	± 1.33

Preparedness Pretest Primary · Baseline

We asked participants six identically worded questions relating to their perceived preparedness to deliver male caregiver outreach at pretest and posttest. Each answer choice was a 10-point confidence rating scale, ranging from 1 (not at all prepared) to 10 (very much prepared), with higher scores indicating better outcomes. We averaged scores from each preparedness question for each participant, then averaged these scores across all participants for group comparisons.

Group	Value	95% CI
Intervention to Help Orient Men to Excel (IN-HOME)	7.05	± 1.98
Control	7.12	± 2.07

Sponsor's own description

Two arm study, experimental and control, to explore the impact of an online training program to prepare community health workers (CHWs) conduct effective outreach to support African American and Latino male caregivers of older adults.

Publications & conference data

No peer-reviewed publications indexed yet for this trial. Completed trials usually publish results within 12-18 months.