Systematic review of information and support interventions for caregivers of people with dementia

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.
BMC Geriatrics (Impact Factor: 1.68). 02/2007; 7(1):18. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2318-7-18
Source: PubMed


Dementia is an important health and social care problem and is one of the main causes of disability in later life. The number of families affected by dementia will dramatically increase over the next five decades. Despite the implications for health and social care services in the future, the overwhelming majority of care for people with dementia takes place away from health care settings. Providing informal care for someone with dementia can be psychologically, physically and financially expensive and a range of health service interventions aimed at supporting and providing information to these carers has developed to help carers meet these demands. This review examines whether information and support interventions improve the quality of life of people caring for someone with dementia.
A systematic review examining evidence from randomised controlled trials in which technology, individualised or group-based interventions built around the provision of support and/or information were evaluated.
Forty-four studies were included in the review. Controlling for the quality of the evidence, we found statistically significant evidence that group-based supportive interventions impact positively on psychological morbidity. However, whilst the improvement was unlikely to be due to chance, the clinical significance of this finding should be interpreted tentatively, due to the difficulties in interpreting the standardised mean difference as a measure of effect and the complex aetiology of depression. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of any other form of intervention on a range of physical and psychological health outcomes.
There is little evidence that interventions aimed at supporting and/or providing information to carers of people with dementia are uniformly effective. There is a pressing need to ensure that supportive interventions at the development stage are accompanied by good quality randomised evaluations in which outcomes that are important to clinicians and carers are measured.

Download full-text


Available from: Yvonne F Birks,
    • "In addition, no supportive effect on the caregivers' well-being was observed during the 36 months of follow-up. Well-designed follow-up intervention studies are warranted (Thompson et al., 2007). Psychosocial interventions have been criticized as having low intensity or being provided during too short a period. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Early diagnosis, initiation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapy and programs that support care of persons with AD at home are recommended. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of early psychosocial intervention on delaying the institutionalization of persons with AD. We also assessed the influence of intervention on AD progression, behavioral symptoms, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in persons with AD and caregivers. Kuopio ALSOVA study, a prospective, randomized intervention study with a 3-year follow-up, was carried out at memory clinics. Home-dwelling persons with very mild or mild AD (n = 236) and AD-targeted therapy and their family caregivers (n = 236) were randomized to the intervention or control group (1:2). Psychosocial intervention including education, counseling, and social support was given during the first 2 years (16 days). The primary outcome was the cumulative risk (controlled for death) of institutionalization over 36 months. Secondary outcomes were adjusted mean changes from baseline in disease severity, cognition, daily activities, behavior, and HRQoL for persons with AD; and change in psychological distress, depression, and HRQoL for caregivers. No differences were found in nursing home placement after the 36-month follow-up between intervention and control groups. No beneficial effects of the intervention were found on the secondary outcomes. The psychosocial intervention did not delay nursing home placement in persons with AD and had no effect on patient well-being, disease progression, or AD-related symptoms or caregiver well-being. Instead of automatically providing psychosocial intervention courses, individualized support programs may be more effective. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 07/2015; DOI:10.1002/gps.4321 · 2.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The concept of intervention levels in the scenarios supports the PWD's independence and guarantees the PWD's sense of control [19]. In this research, five levels of intervention are considered: invites awareness, suggests, prompts, urges, and performs. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this paper, we present a user-centred approach for designing and developing smart homes for people with dementia. In contrast to most of the existing literature related to dementia, the present approach aims at tailoring the system to the specific needs of dementia using a scenario-based methodology. Scenarios are based on typical dementia symptoms which are collected from research literatures and validated by dementia caregivers. They portray the common behaviour of people with dementia. Because they explain real-world situations, scenarios are meant to generalise the requirements of smart homes for people with dementia. Hence, a top-down approach is followed to summarise the content of the scenarios into the essential requirements for smart home frameworks dedicated to monitoring people with dementia.
    Intelligent Environment 11; 07/2015
  • Source
    • "Psychoeducational programs (PEP) have been widely recommended as a strategy to provide information and support to informal caregivers of dependent people (Monahan, 2011; Thompson et al. 2007; Hepburn, Lewis, Sherman & Tornatore, 2003). Nevertheless, the literature points to very poor levels of participation in such programs as a function of several barriers (Cherry, 2012; Fall, 2009; Won, Fitts, Favaro, Olsen & Phelan, 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Psychoeducational programs (PEP) are recommended to provide support to informal caregivers. Evidences show low levels of participation in such programs. Removing barriers is necessary to promote effective programs. The research questions were as follows: what are the barriers to the participation of caregivers of dependent older adults in a PEP? What are the factors that motivate caregivers to participate in a PEP? The main purpose of this study was to analyze the barriers to the participation of informal caregivers of dependent older adults in a PEP and to identify the factors that promote the participation of informal caregivers of dependent older adults in a PEP. A qualitative approach was used for this study, conducted with twenty-four informal caregivers of dependent older adults registered at a Family Health Unit in Trofa County, Portugal. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. For the analysis of empirical material, the content analysis technique proposed by Bardin was used. The “situational” barriers to the participation were most prevalent (need to escort the care recipient to medical visits, cost of transportation, lack of time due to caregiving tasks, or professional activity). The factors that favored participation mostly corresponded to the “psychosocial” (interest in acquiring additional knowledge and skills) and “institutional” categories (interest in the program content). The results demonstrate that inclusion of the participants in the design, implementation, and assessment of the program, as was the case, did not suffice to facilitate the program participation - the multiple barriers to their participation should also have been taken into account. Only by recognizing such barriers will the program become more effective and efficient for the caregivers.
    Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 01/2015; 171. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.170
Show more