A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to reduce burden, stress, and strain in informal stroke caregivers.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Clinical Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1177/02692155241271047
Melissa Jammal, Gregory S Kolt, Karen P Y Liu, Justin M Guagliano, Nariman Dennaoui, Emma S George
{"title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to reduce burden, stress, and strain in informal stroke caregivers.","authors":"Melissa Jammal, Gregory S Kolt, Karen P Y Liu, Justin M Guagliano, Nariman Dennaoui, Emma S George","doi":"10.1177/02692155241271047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand the nature and effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving informal stroke caregiver burden, stress, and strain.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>In line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2022.</p><p><strong>Review methods: </strong>Studies were eligible if they included an intervention designed for informal stroke caregivers, reported on caregiver burden, strain, or stress, were published in English, and used a randomized controlled trial design. An updated search was conducted in June 2024. The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed for caregiver burden and strain outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria and were meta-analyzed. Interventions ranged from 4 days to 12 months. Most studies incorporated educational and/or support components. Meta-analyses revealed nonsignificant effects on caregiver burden or strain. Significant between-group differences for caregiver strain and burden were, however, found in seven studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited studies, small sample sizes, and conflicting results made definitive conclusions on the most effective intervention characteristics for improving caregiver outcomes difficult. Of the 19 studies, seven found significant between-group differences for caregiver outcomes postintervention, and these tended to incorporate educational components and comprised between seven and nine sessions. Further high-quality research is required to identify optimal format, duration, and frequency for improving caregiver outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10441,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1429-1445"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528954/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241271047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To understand the nature and effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving informal stroke caregiver burden, stress, and strain.

Data sources: In line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search of CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2022.

Review methods: Studies were eligible if they included an intervention designed for informal stroke caregivers, reported on caregiver burden, strain, or stress, were published in English, and used a randomized controlled trial design. An updated search was conducted in June 2024. The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The data were pooled, and a meta-analysis was completed for caregiver burden and strain outcomes.

Results: Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria and were meta-analyzed. Interventions ranged from 4 days to 12 months. Most studies incorporated educational and/or support components. Meta-analyses revealed nonsignificant effects on caregiver burden or strain. Significant between-group differences for caregiver strain and burden were, however, found in seven studies.

Conclusion: Limited studies, small sample sizes, and conflicting results made definitive conclusions on the most effective intervention characteristics for improving caregiver outcomes difficult. Of the 19 studies, seven found significant between-group differences for caregiver outcomes postintervention, and these tended to incorporate educational components and comprised between seven and nine sessions. Further high-quality research is required to identify optimal format, duration, and frequency for improving caregiver outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
减少中风非正式照护者负担、压力和紧张的随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的了解旨在改善非正式卒中照护者负担、压力和紧张的干预措施的性质和有效性:根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》指南,于 2022 年 5 月对 CENTRAL、CINAHL、MEDLINE、Embase、APA PsycInfo 和 Web of Science 进行了系统检索:符合条件的研究必须包括为卒中非正式照护者设计的干预措施,报告了照护者的负担、压力或紧张,以英语发表,并采用随机对照试验设计。2024 年 6 月进行了更新检索。研究的方法学质量采用 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具进行评估。对数据进行了汇总,并完成了对照顾者负担和劳累结果的荟萃分析:19项研究符合纳入标准,并进行了荟萃分析。干预时间从 4 天到 12 个月不等。大多数研究纳入了教育和/或支持内容。荟萃分析表明,干预对照顾者的负担或压力没有显著影响。然而,有七项研究发现,照顾者的压力和负担在组间存在显著差异:有限的研究、较小的样本量以及相互矛盾的结果使得我们很难就改善照顾者结果的最有效干预特征得出明确的结论。在 19 项研究中,有 7 项研究发现干预后照护者的结果在组间存在显著差异,这些研究往往包含教育内容,并包含 7 到 9 个疗程。需要进一步开展高质量的研究,以确定改善照顾者效果的最佳形式、持续时间和频率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rehabilitation
Clinical Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
6.70%
发文量
117
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Rehabilitation covering the whole field of disability and rehabilitation, this peer-reviewed journal publishes research and discussion articles and acts as a forum for the international dissemination and exchange of information amongst the large number of professionals involved in rehabilitation. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Physiotherapy-led care versus physician-led care for persons with low back pain: A systematic review. Effects of osteopathic manipulative treatment associated with transcranial direct current stimulation in individuals with chronic low back pain: A double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training with physical therapy for low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prognostic factors of pain, disability, and poor outcomes in persons with neck pain - an umbrella review. Working towards consensus on the assessment of mood after severe acquired brain injury: Focus groups with UK-based professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1