Do caregivers who connect online have better outcomes? A systematic review of online peer-support interventions for caregivers of people with stroke, dementia, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Brain Impairment Pub Date : 2021-03-15 DOI:10.1017/BrImp.2021.5
S. Wallace, J. Kothari, Anushki Jayasekera, J. Tointon, Toluwalase Baiyewun, Kirstine Shrubsole
{"title":"Do caregivers who connect online have better outcomes? A systematic review of online peer-support interventions for caregivers of people with stroke, dementia, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis","authors":"S. Wallace, J. Kothari, Anushki Jayasekera, J. Tointon, Toluwalase Baiyewun, Kirstine Shrubsole","doi":"10.1017/BrImp.2021.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background and Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify and appraise the evidence for online peer-support interventions for caregivers of stroke survivors (with and without aphasia), and people with dementia, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Research Design and Methods: Systematic review conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were systematically searched up until September 2020: EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) scales. Interventions were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Results: A total of 3026 records were identified from database searches. Following screening, 18 studies reporting 17 interventions were included in this review. Most studies (n = 13) reported interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. All studies incorporated an element of peer support as part of the intervention, however, most interventions (n = 15) comprised both psychosocial and educational elements. Statistically significant changes were reported for 11 interventions in one or more of the following domains: caregiver knowledge, mental health, stress, depression, distress, burden, self-efficacy, mastery, helplessness and perceived support. Qualitative outcomes included perceived reductions in stress and increased emotional and informational support. Discussion and Implications: Positive changes in caregiver outcomes were identified in response to multi-component online interventions (i.e., peer support in addition to education). Peer support was often poorly described, limiting the conclusions that could be drawn about the intervention components which result in better outcomes. Online interventions may provide an accessible and effective means of supporting caregivers.","PeriodicalId":56329,"journal":{"name":"Brain Impairment","volume":"25 5 1","pages":"233 - 259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Impairment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2021.5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract Background and Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify and appraise the evidence for online peer-support interventions for caregivers of stroke survivors (with and without aphasia), and people with dementia, traumatic brain injury (TBI), Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Research Design and Methods: Systematic review conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were systematically searched up until September 2020: EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) scales. Interventions were described using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Results: A total of 3026 records were identified from database searches. Following screening, 18 studies reporting 17 interventions were included in this review. Most studies (n = 13) reported interventions for caregivers of people with dementia. All studies incorporated an element of peer support as part of the intervention, however, most interventions (n = 15) comprised both psychosocial and educational elements. Statistically significant changes were reported for 11 interventions in one or more of the following domains: caregiver knowledge, mental health, stress, depression, distress, burden, self-efficacy, mastery, helplessness and perceived support. Qualitative outcomes included perceived reductions in stress and increased emotional and informational support. Discussion and Implications: Positive changes in caregiver outcomes were identified in response to multi-component online interventions (i.e., peer support in addition to education). Peer support was often poorly described, limiting the conclusions that could be drawn about the intervention components which result in better outcomes. Online interventions may provide an accessible and effective means of supporting caregivers.
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
在线联系的护理人员会有更好的结果吗?对中风、痴呆、创伤性脑损伤、帕金森病和多发性硬化症患者护理人员在线同伴支持干预的系统回顾
背景和目的:本系统综述旨在识别和评估在线同伴支持干预对中风幸存者(伴有和不伴有失语)、痴呆、创伤性脑损伤(TBI)、帕金森病和多发性硬化症患者护理人员的证据。研究设计和方法:按照系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价。截至2020年9月,系统检索了五个数据库:EMBASE、PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus和Web of Science。两位审稿人独立筛选标题、摘要和全文文章。采用物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)和混合方法评估工具(MMAT)量表评估纳入研究的方法学质量。使用干预描述和复制模板(TIDieR)检查表对干预进行描述。结果:从数据库检索中共识别出3026条记录。经过筛选,本综述纳入了18项研究,报告了17项干预措施。大多数研究(n = 13)报道了对痴呆症患者护理人员的干预措施。所有的研究都将同伴支持作为干预措施的一部分,然而,大多数干预措施(n = 15)同时包含社会心理和教育因素。在以下一个或多个领域的11项干预措施报告了统计上显著的变化:照顾者知识、心理健康、压力、抑郁、痛苦、负担、自我效能、掌握、无助和感知支持。定性结果包括感知到的压力减少和增加的情感和信息支持。讨论和启示:通过多组分在线干预(即除教育外的同伴支持),确定了照顾者结果的积极变化。同伴支持往往描述得很差,限制了可以得出的有关产生更好结果的干预成分的结论。在线干预可以为护理人员提供方便和有效的支持手段。
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
Brain Impairment
Brain Impairment CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-NEUROSCIENCES
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal addresses topics related to the aetiology, epidemiology, treatment and outcomes of brain impairment with a particular focus on the implications for functional status, participation, rehabilitation and quality of life. Disciplines reflect a broad multidisciplinary scope and include neuroscience, neurology, neuropsychology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology, social work, and nursing. Submissions are welcome across the full range of conditions that affect brain function (stroke, tumour, progressive neurological illnesses, dementia, traumatic brain injury, epilepsy, etc.) throughout the lifespan.
期刊最新文献
Feasibility of accelerometry in a self-directed upper limb activity program of a subacute setting with stroke survivors. Corrigendum to: The development of a cognitive screening protocol for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples: the Guddi Way screen. Health literacy after traumatic brain injury: characterisation and control comparison. Perceptions and experiences of health professionals when supporting adults with stroke to engage in physical activity. Editorial: Clinical implementation to optimise outcomes for people with brain conditions.
×
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