Dataset Information

Self-care interventions in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Stroke is known as one of the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide. Self-care plays a significant role in improving the quality of life, self-efficacy and many other outcomes of stroke survivors. However, it is a dyadic phenomenon where patient self-care and the caregiver contribution to self-care are inter-related in terms of predictors and outcomes. Currently, there is still no systematic assessment conducted to examine the overall effectiveness of self-care interventions carried out in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads and explore the effect on stroke survivor and/or caregiver outcomes.

Methods

We plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding the self-care interventions carried out in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads. We will undertake a systematic search of multiple databases including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and four Chinese databases (CNKI, CBM, WANFANG and VIP) from inception to July 2021 for the purpose of collecting the relevant articles. The eligible studies are defined as those original researches, written in English or Chinese, on self-care interventions in stroke survivor–caregiver dyad samples. Two independent researchers will be deployed to identify the eligible trials according to the selection criteria and extract the relevant data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. We will use the Cochrane Risk for Bias tool to assess the risk of bias for randomised controlled trials.

Ethics and dissemination

In our review, any identifiable patient data will be excluded, which removes the need for ethical approval and participant consent. The final results of our study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42021239824.

SUBMITTER: Wang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8719191 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundApproaches to support the health and well-being of family caregivers of adults with chronic conditions are increasingly important given the key roles caregivers play in helping family members to live in the community. Web-based interventions to support caregivers have the potential to lessen the negative health impacts associated with caregiving and result in improved health outcomes.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effect of caregiver-focused, Web-based interventions, compared with no or minimal Web-based interventions, on caregiver outcomes. The secondary objective was to assess the effect of different types of Web-based interventions (eg, education, peer and professional psychosocial support, and electronic monitoring of the care recipient), compared with no or minimal Web-based interventions, on caregiver outcomes.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CIHAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, and AgeLine were searched from January 1995 to April 2017 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared caregiver-focused, Web-based intervention programs with no or minimal Web-based interventions for caregivers of adults with at least one chronic condition. Studies were included if they involved: adult family or friend caregivers (aged ?18 years) of adults living in the community with a chronic condition; a caregiver-focused, Web-based intervention of education or psychosocial support or electronic monitoring of the care recipient; and general caregiver outcomes (ie, burden, life satisfaction, self-efficacy or mastery, reaction to problem behavior, self-esteem, strain, and social support). Title and abstract as well as full-text screening were completed in duplicate. Data were extracted by a single reviewer and verified by a second reviewer, and risk of bias assessments were completed accordingly. Where possible, data for these caregiver outcomes were meta-analyzed.ResultsThe search yielded 7927 unique citations, of which 294 studies were screened at full text. Of those, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria; 12 were RCTs and 1 study was a CCT. One study used an RCT design in 1 country and a CCT design in 2 other countries. The beneficial effects of any Web-based intervention program, compared with no or minimal Web-based intervention, resulted in a mean increase of 0.85 points (95% CI 0.12 to 1.57) for caregiver self-esteem, a mean increase of 0.36 points (95% CI 0.11 to 0.62) for caregiver self-efficacy or mastery, and a mean decrease of 0.32 points (95% CI -0.54 to -0.09) for caregiver strain. However, the results are based on poor-quality studies.ConclusionsThe review found evidence for the positive effects of Web-based intervention programs on self-efficacy, self-esteem, and strain of caregivers of adults living with a chronic condition. Further high-quality research is needed to inform the effectiveness of specific types of Web-based interventions on caregiver outcomes.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018091715; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=91715 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/738zAa5F5).

Project description:BackgroundCaregivers may promote the uptake of science into patient care and the practice of evidence-informed medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether caregiver-mediated (non-clinical caregiver-delivered) interventions are effective in improving patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Scopus databases from inception to February 27, 2017. Interventions (with a comparison group) reporting on a quality improvement intervention mediated by a caregiver and directed to a patient, in all ages and patient-care settings, were selected for inclusion. A three-category framework was developed to characterize caregiver-mediated interventions: inform (e.g., provide knowledge), activate (e.g., prompt action), and collaborate (e.g., lead to interaction between caregivers and other groups [e.g., care providers]).ResultsFifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 64% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most commonly assessed outcomes were patient- (n?=?40) and caregiver-oriented (n?=?33); few health system- (n?=?10) and provider-oriented (n?=?2) outcomes were reported. Patient outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) were most improved by caregiver-mediated interventions that provided condition and treatment education (e.g., symptom management information) and practical condition-management support (e.g., practicing medication protocol). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., stress-related/psychiatric outcomes) were most improved by interventions that activated caregiver roles (e.g., monitoring blood glucose) and provided information related to that action (e.g., why and how to monitor). The risk of bias was generally high, and the overall quality of the evidence was low-moderate, based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation ratings.ConclusionsThere is a large body of research, including many RCTs, to support the use of caregiver-mediated interventions that inform and activate caregivers to improve patient and caregiver outcomes. Select caregiver-mediated interventions improve patient (inform-activate) and caregiver (inform-activate-collaborate) outcomes and should be considered by all researchers implementing patient- and family-oriented research.Systematic reviewPROSPERO, CRD42016052509 .

Project description:BackgroundStroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and 53.4% of stroke survivors suffer from post-stroke cognitive impairment. Post-stroke cognitive impairment can increase hospitalization rate and cost of care and decrease the quality of life of stroke patients. To date, multiple cognitive rehabilitation interventions have been tested in stroke populations with post-stroke cognitive impairment. However, the most efficacious intervention has not been established. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and clinical trial registries to identify eligible randomized clinical trials with no restrictions in the date of publication and language. Studies conducted with patients aged 18 or over, with the presence of cognitive impairment after being diagnosed with stroke will be included. Studies will be restricted to randomized controlled trials comparing a cognitive rehabilitation intervention with another intervention. The primary outcome is any clinical changes in the general or specific cognitive domain (e.g., executive function, attention, memory, or perception). The secondary outcomes that will be collected include adverse effects (e.g., stroke, disability, or mortality) and quality of life. Two independent reviewers will assess articles to identify trials eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies will also be done independently. Any discrepancies will be solved by discussion, or a third reviewer will be consulted if necessary. A meta-analysis will be carried out if appropriate.DiscussionThis systematic review for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment will assess the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions. And our results will help clinical decision-making and support the development of clinical practice guidelines.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020173988.

Project description:BackgroundThe health of informal caregivers of adults with chronic conditions is increasingly vital since caregivers comprise a large proportion of supportive care to family members living in the community. Due to efficiency and reach, internet-based interventions for informal caregivers have the potential to mitigate the negative mental health outcomes associated with caregiving.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the impact of internet-based interventions on caregiver mental health outcomes and the impact of different types of internet-based intervention programs.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and AgeLine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials published from January 1995 to April 2017 that compared internet-based intervention programs with no or minimal internet-based interventions for caregivers of adults with at least 1 chronic condition. The inclusion criteria were studies that included (1) adult informal caregivers (aged 18 years or older) of adults living in the community with a chronic condition; (2) an internet-based intervention program to deliver education, support, or monitoring to informal caregivers; and (3) outcomes of mental health. Title and abstract and full-text screening were completed in duplicate. Data were extracted by a single reviewer and verified by a second reviewer, and risk of bias assessments were completed accordingly. Where possible, data for mental health outcomes were meta-analyzed.ResultsThe search yielded 7923 unique citations of which 290 studies were screened at full-text. Of those, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; 11 were randomized controlled trials, 1 study was a controlled clinical trial, and 1 study comprised both study designs. Beneficial effects of any internet-based intervention program resulted in a mean decrease of 0.48 points (95% CI -0.75 to -0.22) for stress and distress and a mean decrease of 0.40 points (95% CI -0.58 to -0.22) for anxiety among caregivers. For studies that examined internet-based information and education plus professional psychosocial support, the meta-analysis results showed small to medium beneficial effect sizes of the intervention for the mental health outcomes of depression (-0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.05) and anxiety (-0.36; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07). Some suggestion of a beneficial effect on overall health for the use of information and education plus combined peer and professional support was also shown (1.25; 95% CI 0.24 to 2.25). Overall, many studies were of poor quality and were rated at high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe review found evidence for the benefit of internet-based intervention programs on mental health for caregivers of adults living with a chronic condition, particularly for the outcomes of caregiver depression, stress and distress, and anxiety. The types of interventions that predominated as efficacious included information and education with or without professional psychological support, and, to a lesser extent, with combined peer and psychological support. Further high-quality research is needed to inform the effectiveness of interactive, dynamic, and multicomponent internet-based interventions.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42017075436; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=75436 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/709M3tDvn).

Project description:ImportanceTo our knowledge, there are no evidence-based interventions to prevent chronic emotional distress (ie, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress [PTS]) in critical care survivors and their informal caregivers.ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility and preliminary effect of the novel dyadic resiliency intervention Recovering Together (RT) on reducing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTS among hospitalized patients and their informal caregivers.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-blind, pilot randomized clinical trial of RT vs an educational control was conducted among 58 dyads in which either the survivor or caregiver endorsed clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTS. The study was conducted in the neuroscience intensive care unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. Data were collected from September 2019 to March 2020.InterventionsBoth RT and control programs had 6 sessions (2 at bedside and 4 via live video after discharge), and both survivor and caregiver participated together.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment and intervention delivery, credibility, and satisfaction. The secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety (measured by the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale), PTS (measured by the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version), and intervention targets (ie, mindfulness, measured by the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised; coping, measured by the Measure of Current Status-Part A; and dyadic interpersonal interactions, measured by the Dyadic Relationship Scale). Main outcomes and targets were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks.ResultsThe 58 dyads were randomized to RT (29 dyads [50.0%]; survivors: mean [SD] age, 49.3 [16.7] years; 9 [31.0%] women; caregivers: mean [SD] age, 52.4 [14.3] years; 22 [75.9%] women) or control (29 dyads [50.0%]; survivors: mean [SD] age, 50.3 [16.4] years; 12 [41.3%] women; caregivers, mean [SD] age, 52.1 [14.9], 17 [58.6%] women). Feasibility (recruitment [76%], randomization [100%], and data collection [83%-100%]), adherence (86%), fidelity (100%; κ = 0.98), satisfaction (RT: 57 of 58 [98%] with scores >6; control: 58 of 58 [100%] with scores >6), credibility (RT: 47 of 58 [81%] with scores >6; control: 46 of 58 [80%] with scores >6), and expectancy (RT: 49 of 58 [85%] with scores >13.5; 51 of 58 [87%] with scores >13.5) exceeded benchmarks set a priori. Participation in RT was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement between baseline and postintervention in symptoms of depression (among survivors: -4.0 vs -0.6; difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.6 to -1.3; P = .002; among caregivers: -3.8 vs 0.6; difference, -4.5; 95% CI, -6.7 to -2.3; P < .001), anxiety (among survivors: -6.0 vs 0.3; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -8.8 to -3.8; P < .001; among caregivers: -5.0 vs -0.9; difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.5, P = .002), and PTS (among survivors: -11.3 vs 1.0; difference, -12.3; 95% CI, -18.1 to -6.5, P < .001; among caregivers, -11.4 vs 5.0; difference, -16.4, 95% CI, -21.8 to -10.9; P < .001). Improvements sustained through the 12-week follow-up visit. We also observed RT-dependent improvement in dyadic interpersonal interactions for survivors (0.2 vs -0.2; difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.8; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this pilot randomized clinical trial, RT was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing chronic emotional distress in dyads of survivors of the neuroscience intensive care unit and their informal caregivers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03694678.

Project description:BackgroundExisting self-management and behavioural interventions for diabetes vary widely in their content, and their sustained long-term effectiveness is uncertain. Autonomy supporting interventions may be a prerequisite to achieve 'real life' patient engagement and more long-term improvement through shared decision-making and collaborative goal setting. Autonomy supportive interventions aim to promote that the person with diabetes' motivation is autonomous meaning that the person strives for goals they themselves truly believe in and value. This is the goal of self-determination theory and guided self-determination interventions. Self-determination theory has been reviewed but without assessing both benefits and harms and accounting for the risk of random errors using trial sequential analysis. The guided self-determination has not yet been systematically reviewed. The aim of this protocol is to investigate the benefits and harms of self-determination theory-based interventions versus usual care in adults with diabetes.Methods/designWe will conduct the systematic review following The Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. This protocol is reported according to the PRISMA checklist. A comprehensive search will be undertaken in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, SCI-EXPANDED, CINAHL, SSCI, CPCI-S and CPCI-SSH to identify relevant trials. We will include randomised clinical trials assessing interventions theoretically based on guided self-determination or self-determination theory provided face-to-face or digitally by any healthcare professional in any setting. The primary outcomes will be quality of life, mortality, and serious adverse events. The secondary will be diabetes distress, depressive symptoms and adverse events not considered serious. Exploratory outcomes will be glycated haemoglobin and motivation. Outcomes will be assessed at the end of the intervention and at maximum follow-up. The analyses will be performed using Stata version 16 and trial sequential analysis. Two authors will independently screen, extract data from and perform risk of bias assessment of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE.DiscussionSelf-determination theory interventions aim to promote a more autonomous patient engagement and are commonly used. It is therefore needed to evaluate the benefit and harms according to existing trials.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020181144.