Dataset Information

A comprehensive meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nonpharmacological interventions for informal dementia caregivers.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Many reviews with conflicting findings on dementia caregiver interventions have been published. A meta-review was conducted to synthesize the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS:MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched to identify reviews published during 2006-2018. RESULTS:Sixty reviews covering >?500 intervention studies were selected and appraised with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) II. The great majority of studies were of low quality according to AMSTAR II, but quality factors appeared unrelated to the conclusions obtained. Depression was most modifiable, with effects found across a spectrum of interventions (psychoeducation, counseling/psychotherapy, occupational therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, multicomponent interventions, etc.). Evidence of intervention effect was also found for quality of life (psychoeducation), mastery (psychoeducation, occupational therapy and multicomponent interventions) and communication skills (communication training). Null or weak results were found for anxiety, social support and burden. Support groups and respite were generally ineffective. There was no evidence that dyadic programs were better than caregiver-only programs, or that programs delivered individually or in groups would differ in their impacts. The evidence also does not support multicomponent interventions to have broader impacts than single-component programs. Methodological issues in the existing reviews (e.g., selective use of studies to serve different research purposes and inconsistent classification of interventions) were noted and taken into account when interpreting findings. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-review clarified variations in review methodology and identified a few potent groups of intervention (most notably psychoeducation, psychotherapy, occupational therapy, and multicomponent interventions), although no intervention type had broad effects on caregiver outcomes. We note that improvements are needed in the reporting of intervention studies and in making the classification of interventions more transparent and consistent. We further recommend fewer and larger-scale reviews and more attention to positive outcomes in order to better inform the field. Developing interventions with broader impacts and packaging them to meet caregivers' changing needs in the course of dementia should be a priority for researchers and practitioners.

SUBMITTER: Cheng ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7158025 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comprehensive meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nonpharmacological interventions for informal dementia caregivers.

Cheng Sheung-Tak ST Zhang Fan F

BMC geriatrics 20200415 1

<h4>Background</h4>Many reviews with conflicting findings on dementia caregiver interventions have been published. A meta-review was conducted to synthesize the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched to identify reviews published during 2006-2018.<h4>Results</h4>Sixty reviews covering > 500 intervention studies were selected and appraised with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) II. The great ma ...[more]

PMID: 32293325

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesIt is unclear whether remote interventions are effective in improving outcomes of informal caregivers of patients who had a stroke. We synthesised evidence for the impact of remote interventions on informal caregivers of patients who had a stroke. Moreover, we also analysed its potential effects on patients who had a stroke.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and China Science and Technology Journal Database were searched from inception up to 1 February 2022.Eligibility criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of remote interventions on informal caregivers who provide unpaid care for patients who had a stroke living at home compared with traditional interventions, including with respect to caregivers' mood, care burden, life satisfaction and perceived competence. Moreover, we considered the potential impact of remote interventions on the depressive and anxiety symptoms, functional rehabilitation and re-admission of patients who had a stroke. Only studies published in Chinese or English were included. We excluded studies of interventions aimed at healthcare professionals or patients who had a stroke and those that could not provide complete data.Data extraction and synthesisData analyses were performed using RevMan V.5.3. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCTs was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and the review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CIs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations method was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsEight RCTs with a total of 733 participants were included. Compared with traditional interventions, for informal caregivers, we found that remote interventions did not produce significant effects on depressive symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.15), anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.94 to 0.43), care burden (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.45), life satisfaction (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.11), or perceived competence (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.96). Similarly, for patients who had a stroke, remote interventions had no significant effect on depression (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.93) or anxiety symptoms (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.72 to 0.04). The effects of remote interventions on functional rehabilitation and re-admission in patients who had a stroke were evaluated by three studies and two studies, respectively, but the studies were too varied to combine their data in meta-analysis.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that remote interventions for informal caregivers of patients who had a stroke have no significant superiority over traditional interventions. However, the quality of the included studies was low and more high-quality evidence is required to determine the possible impacts of remote interventions.Prospero registration numberCRD42022313544.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.MethodsA comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.ResultsA total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.ConclusionsThe abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Dataset Information

A comprehensive meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nonpharmacological interventions for informal dementia caregivers.

Publications

A comprehensive meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nonpharmacological interventions for informal dementia caregivers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets