Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07494071

Improving Family Communication in Older Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

This study evaluates the effectiveness of "ReFrame-R," a communication training program designed to help older adults in Hong Kong navigate intergenerational challenges. By focusing on enhancing communication competence and clarifying role boundaries within parent-child relationships, the research seeks to determine if this specialized intervention can improve the mental well-being of both older and younger generations. The study asks whether participating in the "ReFrame-R" curriculum leads to measurable improvements in how families interact, hypothesizing that older adults in the training group will demonstrate significantly better communication quality and a stronger sense of meaning compared to those in a control group. This study also aims to evaluate the program's overall feasibility and acceptability.

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

60 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Cantonese-speaking older adults
  • have regular contact with adult children
  • can comprehend traditional Chinese

Exclusion criteria

  • known mental health diagnosis
  • mild or higher depressive symptoms (scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9; Kroenke et al., 2001; Manea et al., 2015])
  • communication difficulties

Treatment and study plan

ReFrame-R

Behavioral

The ReFrame-R program is adapted from an established Motivational Interviewing (MI) protocol for laypersons (Kline et al., 2022). Grounded in Family Systems Theory, the curriculum specifically addresses over-functioning and under-functioning dynamics often found in older parent-adult child dyads and the cultural specific context of Hong Kong. Unlike general communication workshops, this program emphasizes role boundaries within parent-adult child relationship.

Primary outcomes

  1. Perceived communication competence

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up)

    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.

  2. Meaning in life

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up)

    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.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Self-efficacy

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up)

    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.

  2. Well-being

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up)

    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.

  3. Role boundaries

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up)

    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.

  4. Family functioning

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 (end of training), Week 6 (2 weeks follow-up)

    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.

  5. Training appropriateness

    Time frame: Week 4 (end of training)

    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.

  6. Training acceptability

    Time frame: Week 4 (end of training)

    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.

  7. Training feasibility

    Time frame: Week 6 (2 week follow-up)

    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.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Yee Man Branda Yu

CONTACT

[email protected]

+852-39173914

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

The University of Hong Kong

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Pilot Evaluation of ReFrame-R: A Communication Training to Reframe Older Adults' Family Roles and Promote Active Aging

Acronym: ReFrame-P

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2028
Study completion
2028
First posted
Mar 27, 2026
Registry last updated
Mar 27, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.