Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33880701›Full record

Trial reportNeurocritical care2021

Can a Dyadic Resiliency Program Improve Quality of Life in Cognitively Intact Dyads of Neuro-ICU Survivors and Informal Caregivers? Results from a Pilot RCT.

Ethan G Lester, Ryan A Mace, Sarah M Bannon, Paula J Popok, Melissa V Gates, Emma Meyers, Tara Tehan, Danielle Sagueiro, Jonathan Rosand, Eric A Macklin and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Neurocritical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ethan G LesterIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA.
Ryan A MaceIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA.
Sarah M BannonIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA.
Paula J PopokIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA.
Melissa V GatesIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA.
Emma MeyersIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA.
Tara TehanNeuroscience Intensive Care Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Danielle SagueiroNeuroscience Intensive Care Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Jonathan RosandHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Eric A MacklinHarvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Ana-Maria VranceanuIntegrated Brain Health Clinical and Research Program, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, One Bowdoin Square, 1st Floor, Suite 100, Boston, MA, USA. avranceanu@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3994-6488
Harvard University · USMassachusetts General Hospital · US

Funding

Resilient Together; Developing a resiliency skills program for dyads of patients with young onset dementia and their family caregiversR21NR017979 · NINR · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI VRANCEANU, ANA-MARIA · 2018 to 2019
$673k
NINR NIH HHS R21 NR017979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeuro-ICU hospitalization for an acute neurological illness is often traumatic and associated with heightened emotional distress and reduced quality of life (QoL) for both survivors and their informal caregivers (i.e., family and friends providing unpaid care). In a pilot study, we previously showed that a dyadic (survivor and caregiver together) resiliency intervention (Recovering Together [RT]) was feasible and associated with sustained improvement in emotional distress when compared with an attention placebo educational control. Here we report on changes in secondary outcomes assessing QoL.

methodsSurvivors (n = 58) and informal caregivers (n = 58) completed assessments at bedside and were randomly assigned to participate together as a dyad in the RT or control intervention (both 6 weeks, two in-person sessions at bedside and four sessions via live video post discharge). We measured QoL domain scores (physical health, psychological, social relations, and environmental), general QoL, and QoL satisfaction using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Abbreviated Instrument at baseline, post treatment, and 3 months' follow-up. We conducted mixed model analyses of variance with linear contrasts to estimate (1) within-group changes in QoL from baseline to post treatment and from post treatment to 3 months' follow-up and (2) between-group differences in changes in QoL from baseline to post treatment and from post treatment to 3 months' follow-up.

resultsWe found significant within-group improvements from baseline to post treatment among RT survivors for physical health QoL (mean difference 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-3.06; p = 0.012), environmental QoL (mean difference 1.29; 95% CI 0.21-2.36; p = 0.020), general QoL (mean difference 0.55; 95% CI 0.13-0.973; p = 0.011), and QoL satisfaction (mean difference 0.87; 95% CI 0.36-1.37; p = 0.001), and those improvements sustained through the 3-month follow-up. We found no significant between-group improvements for survivors or caregivers from baseline to post treatment or from post treatment to 3 months' follow-up for any QoL variables (i.e., domains, general QoL, and QoL satisfaction together).

conclusionsIn this pilot study, we found improved QoL among survivors, but not in caregivers, who received RT and improvements sustained over time. These RT-related improvements were not significantly greater than those observed in the control. Results support a fully powered randomized controlled trial to allow for a definitive evaluation of RT-related effects among dyads of survivors of acute brain injury and their caregivers.

Indexed as

CaregiversQuality of LifeAdaptation, PsychologicalAftercareHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient DischargePilot ProjectsSurvivorsCaregiversDyadsNeuro-ICUNeurological illnessQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID33880701
PMCPMC10947170
OpenAlexW3154093525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.