Trial reportBMC psychology2026
Looking at two psychological interventions with family caregivers of people with dementia through their own lenses: lessons learned.
Trial report in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is interest in demonstrating which interventions with caregivers are most effective. However, there has been little research on their own perception of such efficacy. This study aims to identify and compare the benefits perceived by family caregivers of people with dementia of two interventions (psychoeducational intervention -PI- and support group -SG-) and to see if there are differences in their assessments and narratives depending on whether they show clinically relevant changes after the intervention.
methodsTwenty-five randomly assigned family caregivers participated in either a PI or a SG, and their pre-post treatment depressive symptomatology was assessed. Whether they obtained a clinically relevant change was determined by calculating the reliable change index, to classify them as Responders (R+) or Non-responders (NoR+) to each intervention. Participants’ perceptions of intervention effectiveness were assessed through structured and open-ended questions. Qualitative data were analyzed using the Framework Method, enabling systematic comparison between interventions and between clinical response profiles.
resultsAlthough the proportion of R + was higher in the PI group, caregivers in both interventions described positive experiences and highlighted learning and emotional support as key benefits. Narratives from SG participants revealed a desire for more practical strategies, suggesting the added value of psychoeducational components. Perceived benefits did not differ substantially between R + and NoR+, indicating that caregivers can experience meaningful gains even without measurable symptom improvement.
conclusionsCaregivers perceive both psychoeducational and support group interventions as beneficial. Integrating emotional support with structured psychoeducational content may enhance the clinical impact of caregiver interventions. Exploring caregivers’ experiences using systematic qualitative methods provides essential insights that complement quantitative outcomes and inform more tailored and effective interventions.
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.