Dataset Information

Mental health and caregiving experiences of family carers supporting people with psychosis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Family carers supporting an individual with psychosis often experience poorer mental health, however, little is known about specific risk factors among these carers. We investigated the associations between demographic, caregiving characteristics and mental health outcomes in family carers supporting an individual with psychosis and compared carers' outcomes with general population norms.

Methods

We analysed baseline data from the COPe-support randomised controlled trial of online psychoeducation and peer support for adult carers supporting an individual with psychosis between 2018 and 2020. We collected carers' demographic and health outcome data, including wellbeing using Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS as primary outcome), quality of life using EQ-5D-5L and caregiving experience assessed with Experience of Caregiving Inventory. We tested associations between carers' demographic and caregiving characteristics for each outcome in turn and meta-analysed carers' WEMWBS and EQ-5D-5L with Health Survey England (HSE) general population data from 2016 and 2017, respectively.

Results

The 407 carers of people with psychosis had a mean WEMWBS score of 42.2 (s.d. 9.21) and their overall weighted pooled WEMWBS score was 7.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) -8.6 to -6.0, p < 0.01) lower than the HSE general population sample, indicating carers have poorer mental wellbeing by more than double the minimum clinically important difference of 3 points on WEMWBS. Among all caring relationships, partners had poorer wellbeing compared to parents with lower WEMWBS score (-6.8, -16.9 to 3.3, p = 0.03). Single carers had significantly poorer wellbeing (-3.6, -5.6 to -1.5, p < 0.01) and a more negative caregiving experience than those who were cohabiting. Spending more than 35 h per week caregiving increased carers' negative experience significantly (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Carers of people with psychosis have poorer mental health than non-carers. Partners, lone carers and those spending more than 35 h per week on caring were found to be most at risk of poor mental health. Based on the results, we advocate that the details of carers for individuals with psychosis should be added to the existing carers or severe mental illness registers at all general practitioner surgeries and for their wellbeing screened routinely. Future large-scale prospective studies are needed to develop a predictive model to determine risk factors, hence to aid early identification of carers' support needs. Such understandings are also useful to inform tailored intervention development.

SUBMITTER: Sin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7116786 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPsychoeducation delivered face-to-face is effective in alleviating mental health morbidities in family carers of individuals with psychosis. However, research in such interventions delivered online is scarce. We evaluated the effectiveness of a digital multicomponent intervention-COPe-support-in improving carers' mental wellbeing and caregiving-related outcomes.MethodsIn this two-arm, individually randomised, superiority trial, people aged 18 years or older who provided at least weekly support in any format for a relative or close friend affected by psychosis across England were randomly assigned (1:1) to either COPe-support or a passive online information resource using an independent online system. Participants were recruited through 30 mental health UK National Health Service trusts. The study team were masked to allocation and assessment of outcomes as all data collection took place online. Participants had access to either condition for 40 weeks and were advised to spend at least half an hour per week over the initial 20 weeks to go through materials at their own pace and to allow time to integrate knowledge and skills learned into practice. It was not feasible to mask participants or the online facilitator to intervention allocation. COPe-support provided psychoeducation on psychosis-related caregiving strategies and forums with professionals and other carers, and the control intervention comprised a passive online information resource. The primary outcome at 20 weeks was mental wellbeing measured by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS; minimally clinically important difference [MCID] 3). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 89563420.FindingsBetween March 1, 2018, and Feb 14, 2020, 407 participants were randomly assigned, with 204 allocated to COPe-support and 203 allocated to control. The participants (mean age 53·1 years, SD 13·2) were mostly female (330 [81%] of 407 participants) and White (359 [88%] of 407 participants). 346 (85%) of 407 participants provided primary endpoint data, 174 (85%) of 204 participants in the COPe-support group and 172 (85%) of 203 participants in the control group. The mean WEMWBS score at 20 weeks was 44·5 (SD 8·31) for the COPe-support group and 43·3 (9·19) for the control group. We found no evidence of a difference in wellbeing between the two groups (adjusted mean difference 0·37, 95% CI -1·14 to 1·88; p=0·63). In the COPe-support group, 106 (52%) of 204 participants met the complier definition of a minimum of two logins in separate weeks. The complier average causal effect analysis increased the difference in WEMWBS scores (adjusted difference 0·83, 95% CI -1·45 to 3·11; p=0·47), but this was lower than the MCID. There were no adverse events.InterpretationOur findings did not support the use of COPe-support over a passive online information resource. However, further research to optimise digital interventions adjunctive to face-to-face support for carers remains important.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundMental health recovery narratives have been defined as first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems which refer to events or actions over a period of time and which include elements of adversity or struggle, and also self-defined strengths, successes or survival. They are readily available in invariant recorded form, including text, audio or video. Previous studies have provided evidence that receiving recorded recovery narratives can provide benefits to recipients. This protocol describes three pragmatic trials that will be conducted by the Narrative Experiences Online (NEON) study using the NEON Intervention, a web application that delivers recorded recovery narratives to its users. The aim of the NEON Trial is to understand whether receiving online recorded recovery narratives through the NEON Intervention benefits people with experience of psychosis. The aim of the NEON-O and NEON-C trials is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial on the use of the NEON Intervention with people experiencing non-psychosis mental health problems and those who care for others experiencing mental health problems respectively.MethodsThe NEON Trial will recruit 683 participants with experience of psychosis. The NEON-O Trial will recruit at least 100 participants with experience of non-psychosis mental health problems. The NEON-C Trial will recruit at least 100 participants with experience of caring for others who have experienced mental health problems. In all three trials, participants will be randomly allocated into one of two arms. Intervention arm participants will receive treatment as usual plus immediate access to the NEON Intervention for 1 year. Control arm participants will receive treatment as usual plus access to the NEON Intervention after 1 year. All participants will complete demographics and outcome measures at baseline, 1 week, 12 weeks and 52 weeks. For the NEON Trial, the primary outcome measure is the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life at 52 weeks, and secondary outcome measures are the CORE-10, Herth Hope Index, Mental Health Confidence Scale and Meaning in Life Questionnaire. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted using data collected through the EQ-5D-5 L and the Client Service Receipt Inventory.DiscussionNEON Trial analyses will establish both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NEON Intervention for people with experience of psychosis, and hence inform future clinical recommendations for this population.Trial registrationAll trials were prospectively registered with ISRCTN. NEON Trial: ISRCTN11152837 . Registered on 13 August 2018. NEON-C Trial: ISRCTN76355273 . Registered on 9 January 2020. NEON-O Trial: ISRCTN63197153 . Registered on 9 January 2020.

Project description:BackgroundFamily carers play a crucial role in supporting the health and well-being of people with intellectual disabilities. Given their role and responsibilities, many family carers experience significant and ongoing stress and mental health difficulties. Programmes and interventions which provide training and support to family carers have been shown to have a positive impact on levels of stress and quality of life. However, these are often face to face which can create barriers to full participation. Online interventions have been shown to offer flexibility in delivery compared with traditional face-to-face approaches. The primary objective of this study is to determine the feasibility of delivering the Carers-ID online intervention, while the secondary outcome is improved mental health in family carers of people with intellectual disabilities.MethodsFamily carers (n = 120) will be randomised to receive the intervention (n = 60) or assigned to a wait-list control (n = 60) group. The intervention ( www.Carers-ID.com ) consists of 14 modules which cover topics including the following: promoting resilience, providing peer support, reducing anxiety, managing stress, accessing local supports and managing family conflict and information for siblings who are carers. The intervention has been co-produced with voluntary sector organisations and family carers and tested for acceptability. Primary outcomes for this study include acceptability and feasibility of the outcome measures, recruitment, participation and retention rates and effect sizes. Secondary outcomes will be completed at three time points (baseline, following intervention completion and 3 months after completion). These include the following: the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, the Resilience Scale and the Social Connectedness Scale Revised. Participants (n = 12) who have taken part in the intervention arm of the research will be invited to participate in semi-structured interviews as part of the process evaluation.DiscussionThe Carers-ID intervention provides an online resource for family carers to support their mental health and well-being and promote their resilience. It represents an affordable and accessible means of delivering such support. Testing the feasibility of the intervention and related trial procedures is required to determine whether a full-scale randomised controlled trial to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness is warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT05737823.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence-based smoking cessation and temporary abstinence interventions to address smoking in mental health settings are available, but the impact of these interventions is limited.Aims and methodsWe aimed to identify and synthesize the perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Six databases were searched for articles reporting the investigation of perceived barriers and enablers to supporting smoking cessation in mental health settings. Data were extracted and coded using a mixed inductive/deductive method to the theoretical domains framework, key barriers and enablers were identified through the combining of coding frequency, elaboration, and expressed importance.ResultsOf 31 included articles, 56 barriers/enablers were reported from the perspectives of mental healthcare professionals (MHPs), 48 from patient perspectives, 21 from mixed perspectives, and 0 from relatives/carers. Barriers to supporting smoking cessation or temporary abstinence in mental health settings mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, MHPs lack of time); knowledge (eg, interactions around smoking that did occur were ill informed); social influences (eg, smoking norms within social network); and intentions (eg, MHPs lack positive intentions to deliver support). Enablers mainly fell within the domains: environmental context and resources (eg, use of appropriate support materials) and social influences (eg, pro-quitting social norms).ConclusionsThe importance of overcoming competing demands on staff time and resources, the inclusion of tailored, personalized support, the exploitation of patients wider social support networks, and enhancing knowledge and awareness around the benefits smoking cessation is highlighted.ImplicationsIdentified barriers and enablers represent targets for future interventions to improve the support of smoking cessation in mental health settings. Future research needs to examine the perceptions of the carers and family/friends of patients in relation to the smoking behavior change support delivered to patients.

Project description:Advisory bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the UK, advocate using preference based instruments to measure the quality of life (QoL) component of the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Cost per QALY is used to determine cost-effectiveness, and hence funding, of interventions. QALYs allow policy makers to compare the effects of different interventions across different patient groups. Generic measures may not be sensitive enough to fully capture the QoL effects for certain populations, such as carers, so there is a need to consider additional outcome measures, which are preference based where possible to enable cost-effectiveness analysis to be undertaken. This paper reviews outcome measures commonly used in health services research and health economics research involving carers of people with dementia. An electronic database search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included an outcome measure for carers of people with dementia. 2262 articles were identified. 455 articles describing 361 studies remained after exclusion criteria were applied. 228 outcome measures were extracted from the studies. Measures were categorised into 44 burden measures, 43 mastery measures, 61 mood measures, 32 QoL measures, 27 social support and relationships measures and 21 staff competency and morale measures. The choice of instrument has implications on funding decisions; therefore, researchers need to choose appropriate instruments for the population being measured and the type of intervention undertaken. If an instrument is not sensitive enough to detect changes in certain populations, the effect of an intervention may be underestimated, and hence interventions which may appear to be beneficial to participants are not deemed cost-effective and are not funded. If this is the case, it is essential that additional outcome measures which detect changes in broader QoL are included, whilst still retaining preference based utility measures such as EQ-5D to allow QALY calculation for comparability with other interventions.