SynthesisCurrent opinion in supportive and palliative care2019
Measuring the success of interventions for caregivers: a focussed systematic review.
Synthesis in Current opinion in supportive and palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of interventions for informal caregivers of people with end-stage chronic illness: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Advancing the measurement of caregiver impact: Data collection priorities aligned with caregiver, health technology assessment, and policy stakeholders.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Review
- Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine for Cardiovascular Disease Management in Mental Healthcare: A Literature Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Article
- A Systematic Review of Educational Interventions for Informal Caregivers of People Living with Dementia in Low and Middle-Income Countries.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROMs) in palliative cancer care: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe selection and application of outcome measures are fundamental steps in the research process because they inform decisions around intervention efficacy. We aimed to describe the outcomes used in trials of supportive interventions for adult caregivers of people with three exemplar life-limiting conditions: heart failure, dementia or stroke. RECENT
findingsWe performed a focussed review of 134 published trials that included interventions designed to improve caregivers' health and wellbeing and/or ability to function in their caring role. We extracted and categorized all caregiver outcomes described in the studies. We identified inconsistency in the outcomes measured; frequent use of bespoke and adapted tools (29% of outcomes were bespoke), and a lack of clarity in outcome priorities (the mean number of outcomes per trial was four [range: 1-11]). Outcome scales that purport to measure the psychological impact of the caring role were the most popular tools in all three caregiver groups. SUMMARY: Outcomes used in trials related to adult caregivers are characterized by inconsistencies in outcome measure selection and assessment. This heterogeneity complicates comparisons of treatments and attempts to pool data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.