Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29996850›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2018

Translating evidence to patient care through caregivers: a systematic review of caregiver-mediated interventions.

Kirsten M Fiest, Christiane Job McIntosh, Danielle Demiantschuk, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Henry T Stelfox

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kirsten M FiestDepartments of Critical Care Medicine and Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health and Hotchkiss Brain Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada. kmfiest@ucalgary.ca.
Christiane Job McIntoshDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Danielle DemiantschukDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Jeanna Parsons LeighDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Henry T StelfoxDepartments of Critical Care Medicine, Medicine and Community Health Sciences, O'Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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 REVIEW: PROSPERO, CRD42016052509 .

Indexed as

CaregiversHumansPatient CareCaregiver-mediatedImplementation scienceInterventionKnowledge translationQuality improvementReviewSystematic reviewTranslational medical research

Identifiers

PMID29996850
PMCPMC6042352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.