Dataset Information

What are the consequences of caring for older people and what interventions are effective for supporting unpaid carers? A rapid review of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify and map evidence about the consequences of unpaid caring for all carers of older people, and effective interventions to support this carer population.

Design

A rapid review of systematic reviews, focused on the consequences for carers of unpaid caring for older people, and interventions to support this heterogeneous group of carers. Reviews of carers of all ages were eligible, with any outcome measures relating to carers' health, and social and financial well-being. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Epistemonikos (January 2000 to January 2020). Records were screened, and included systematic reviews were quality appraised. Summary data were extracted and a narrative synthesis produced.

Results

Twelve systematic reviews reporting evidence about the consequences of caring for carers (n=6) and assessing the effectiveness of carer interventions (n=6) were included. The review evidence typically focused on mental health outcomes, with little information identified about carers' physical, social and financial well-being. Clear estimates of the prevalence and severity of carer outcomes, and how these differ between carers and non-carers, were absent. A range of interventions were identified, but there was no strong evidence of effectiveness. In some studies, the choice of outcome measure may underestimate the full impact of an intervention.

Conclusions

Current evidence fails to fully quantify the impacts that caring for older people has on carers' health and well-being. Information on social patterning of the consequences of caring is absent. Systematic measurement of a broad range of outcomes, with comparison to the general population, is needed to better understand the true consequences of caring. Classification of unpaid caring as a social determinant of health could be an effective lever to bring greater focus and support to this population. Further work is needed to develop and identify suitable interventions in order to support evidence-based policymaking and practice.

SUBMITTER: Spiers GF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8483048 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsFamily 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionCarers 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.

Project description:BackgroundBurden is well documented among carers of stroke survivors, yet current evidence is insufficient to determine if any strategies reduce this negative outcome. Existing interventions for carers of stroke survivors typically involve supporting carers according to their individual needs through face-to-face interactions and provision of information including workbooks or educational guides. To date, no interventions have been developed using a method which systematically incorporates evidence, behaviour change theories, and stakeholder involvement to change the behaviours of carers and relevant individuals who support carers. This study aimed to develop a programme plan for a theory and evidence-based intervention to reduce burden in carers of stroke survivors.MethodsInformed by evidence from two systematic reviews and 33 qualitative interviews, the first four stages of Intervention Mapping were used to guide the intervention development process: 1) needs assessment; 2) identifying outcomes and objectives; 3) selecting theoretical methods and practical applications; and 4) creating a programme plan. Structured and facilitated involvement from stakeholders, including carers, researchers, and professionals from health and community services was integral to the intervention development process. Stakeholders helped to prioritise the focus of the intervention, develop the goals, outcomes and objectives for the programme, and generate and refine intervention ideas.ResultsStakeholders prioritised the need for carers to feel prepared before and during the transition from hospital to home as key to reducing burden. The proposed intervention 'Preparing is Caring' targets this need and involves providing and signposting carers to relevant information and support for practical and emotional needs. This is to be delivered before, during, and immediately after the stroke survivor's transition from hospital to home by a person taking on a single point of contact role. It is comprised of multiple theory-based components including: training packages for information and support providers working with carers and wider staff teams, plus elements to support carers to feel prepared.ConclusionsWe have developed a comprehensive programme plan for a multiple-component, theory and evidence informed behaviour change intervention aimed at preparing carers before and during the transition from hospital to home. Future work is required to refine, implement and evaluate the Preparing is Caring intervention.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adult carers of people who experience psychosis are at increased risk of developing physical and mental health problems due to the compounding factors of supporting their care-recipient and the health changes associated with ageing. Effective interventions exist but can be difficult to access and maintain prolonged engagement. Self-directed writing therapies, frequently referred to as Written Emotional Disclosure (WED), might be a suitable alternative intervention to improve the wellbeing of carers.MethodsThis study aimed to determine the feasibility (recruitment, retention and primary outcome completion) and acceptability of a specific WED intervention known as Positive Written Disclosure (PWD). Informal carers of people with psychosis were randomised to PWD, neutral writing or no writing. Quantitative outcomes including positive and negative affect, carer wellbeing, quality of life, depression, anxiety, stress, self-efficacy, leisure time satisfaction as well as health care utilisation were collected at baseline, 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments. Qualitative feedback was also collected via questionnaire and semi-structured interviews from those randomised to either writing group.ResultsWe successfully met our progression criteria, recruiting to target and within timeframes whilst attaining 97% retention and 84% primary outcome data completed at 6 months. Carers randomised to the positive writing group described the intervention as enabling them to have a more positive attitude and focus on activities for themselves. Both writing groups described their tasks as providing distraction from caring responsibilities. However, some carers found the narrow positive emotion focus challenging.ConclusionsPWD is a feasible and acceptable intervention for older adult carers of people with psychosis within a community setting. Further refinement of the writing protocol to include choice in type of emotion disclosed in addition to screening for some level of need may be required in future trials to reduce floor/ceiling effects of outcomes which may explain the lack of change observed.

Project description:BackgroundEmerging evidence shows an impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people living with dementia and informal carers, without any evidence-based global comparison to date. The aim of this international study was to explore and compare the perceived impact of COVID-19 and associated public health restrictions on the lives of people living with dementia and informal carers and access to dementia care across five countries.MethodsInformal carers and people living with dementia who were residing in the community in the UK, Australia, Italy, India, and Poland were interviewed remotely between April and December 2020. Participants were asked about their experiences of the pandemic and how restrictions have impacted on their lives and care. Transcripts were analysed by researchers in each country using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsFifteen people living with dementia and 111 informal carers participated across the five countries. Four themes emerged: (1) Limited access and support; (2) Technology and issues accessing remote support; (3) Emotional impact; and (4) Decline of cognitive and physical health reported by carers. Whilst variations were noted, the pandemic has indirectly affected people with dementia and carers across all five countries. The pandemic removed access to social support services and thus increased carer burden. Remote services were not always provided and were very limited in benefit and usability for those with dementia. As a result, carers appeared to notice reduced cognitive and physical health in people with dementia. Particular differences were noted between India and Poland vs. the UK, Italy, and Australia, with less impact on care provision in the former due to limited uptake of support services pre-pandemic based on cultural settings.ConclusionsThe pandemic has amplified dementia as a global public health problem, and people affected by the condition need support to better access vital support services to live well.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with dementia living at home represent a growing group of social care services users in England. Many are unable to complete questionnaires due to cognitive impairment. The ASCOT-Proxy is an adapted version of an established measure, ASCOT, which was developed as a way of collecting social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) data from this group of service users, either alone or alongside the ASCOT-Carer, a measure of SCRQoL for unpaid carers. The ASCOT-Proxy includes two perspectives, the proxy-proxy perspective ('My opinion: What I think') and proxy-person perspective ('What I think the person I represent thinks'). We aimed to establish the feasibility, construct validity and reliability of the ASCOT-Proxy and ASCOT-Carer, with unpaid carers of people with dementia living at home unable to self-report. We also aimed to establish structural characteristics of the ASCOT-Proxy.MethodsCross-sectional data were collected using self-administered questionnaire (paper or online) among unpaid carers living in England between January 2020 and April 2021. Unpaid carers could take part if they supported someone living with dementia who was unable to self-complete a structured questionnaire. The person living with dementia or their unpaid carer had to use at least one social care service. We used the proportion of missing data to establish feasibility, ordinal exploratory factor analysis to establish structural characteristics, Zumbo's ordinal alpha for internal reliability, and hypothesis testing for construct validity. We also conducted Rasch analysis.ResultsWe analysed data for 313 carers (62.4(± 12.0) years, 75.7% (N=237) females). We were able to calculate the ASCOT-Proxy-proxy overall score for 90.7% of our sample, the ASCOT-Proxy-person overall score for 88.8% of our sample and in case of the ASCOT-Carer for 99.7% of our sample. As there was an issue with structural characteristics of the ASCOT-Proxy-proxy we conducted Rasch, reliability and construct validity analysis for the ASCOT-Proxy-person and ASCOT-Carer only.ConclusionsThis was a first study to explore psychometric characteristics of the ASCOT-Proxy and ASCOT-Carer with unpaid carers of people with dementia living at home unable to self-report. There are some aspects of the psychometric characteristics of the ASCOT-Proxy and ASCOT-Carer that warrant further investigation in future. Trial registration NA.

Project description:BackgroundAbout three-quarters of people with dementia live in their own homes, with help from family members and/or other unpaid carers, such as friends or neighbors. Often, unpaid carers themselves experience negative consequences, such as stress, burden, and symptoms of depression or anxiety. Research has shown that these consequences can be alleviated by psychosocial and psychological interventions. Moreover, there are indications that those interventions can be effective when offered online.ObjectiveThis paper describes the protocol of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that will take place in the Netherlands to evaluate the effectiveness of iSupport, a minimally guided, internet-based intervention to improve carers' mental health and coping resources.MethodsA superiority two-arm RCT comparing the effects of the online support program with a waiting list control condition will be carried out in the Netherlands. The iSupport intervention was developed by the World Health Organization and is based on cognitive behavioral therapy principles. It has five main themes divided into 23 lessons. Carers can pick and choose which lessons they want to complete. We aim to recruit 200 unpaid carers. The experimental group (n=100) will be provided with access to the intervention for 3 months following randomization; those in the waiting list control group (n=100) will be granted access to the intervention after 3 months. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (T0), 3 months after baseline (post intervention, T1), and 6 months after baseline (follow-up, T2). The primary outcome is perceived stress, measured by the Perceived Stress Scale. Secondary outcomes are symptoms of depression and anxiety, caregiver burden, sense of competence, self-efficacy, mastery, and carers' attitudes toward dementia and their person-centered approach (ie, to what extent carers tailor the provided care to the interest, needs, and history of the person with dementia).ResultsRecruitment for the trial started in January 2019. As of July 2019, we have enrolled 120 participants. Data collection is expected to be completed by March 2020. Once all the data have been collected, we will conduct the data analyses between April and May 2020. We aim to publish our results in a manuscript by June 2020.ConclusionsOnline interventions have shown promising results in improving the mental health of carers of people with dementia. Additionally, online interventions may overcome accessibility barriers. If successful, this intervention will have important potential for implementation as a public health intervention, since costs and support by trained staff are minimal.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register (NTL) NL6417; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6417.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/14106.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThere are over 1 million adults with a learning disability in the UK, of whom approximately 20% displaying behaviours that challenge others. Two thirds of people with learning disabilities live in the family home. As they and their family carers age, both are likely to face particular difficulties and stresses, but there is little understanding of their experiences and needs. To address this evidence gap, our main objective is to undertake two rapid scoping reviews that will collectively focus on the health and social care needs, experiences, service interventions and resources of older people with learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge others, and their family carers. Both reviews will focus on issues relating to forward planning and transitions to different care contexts. The study is part of a research project funded by the National Institute for Health Research No.129491.MethodsWe propose to address the need for evidence via two rapid scoping reviews. We will include published and unpublished (grey) literature, encompassing empirical research, policy and practice guidance and lay resources to support decision-making. We will search multiple electronic databases, hand search references lists, and use expert guidance to identify potential evidence. The following databases were used for research and grey literature: CINAHL; Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC); NHS Evidence; Scopus; Turning Evidence Into Practice (TRIP); Web of Science (WoS); Google (first 5 pages); and Google Scholar (first 5 pages). For RR2, additional intended databases are the Carer Research Knowledge Exchange Network (CAREN) and Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles for inclusion. One reviewer will extract data, with an independent review undertaken by the research team. Critical appraisal will depend on the nature of included evidence. Narrative synthesis will be collaboratively developed, with descriptive information presented in tables summarising study characteristics and thematic analysis of findings presented in the main text. Dissemination will be through journal publication, conference presentations and written short-form, easy-read versions of articles and audio-video clips for lay audiences.DiscussionWe will consider the strengths and limitations of our reviews, considering their impact on findings. We will summarise the main findings and provide an interpretation linked to the review questions and objectives. We will consider the implications of our findings for policy and practice, as well as future research addressing the support of older people with learning difficulties and behaviours that challenge others, and their family carers, in the context of transition to different care contexts in the UK. The protocol has been registered as Vseteckova, J., Jordan, J., Tilley, E., Larkin, M., Ryan, S., and Wallace, L. (2021, December 4). Transitions for older people with learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge others, and their family carers: a merged protocol for two rapid scoping reviews of evidence. Retrieved from osf.io/jzrn9.