ArticleBMJ open2026
Family caregiver education programmes for safe home care: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation ageing and the rise in chronic diseases are driving a shift from residential models to home care where family carers play a key role. Although education programmes have shown benefits, limited attention has been paid to how family caregivers can be effectively trained to prevent unintentional mistakes in home care and to how they should be prepared to respond to them related to the care they provide.
objectivesThis scoping review aims to examine education programmes that enhance family caregivers' knowledge and skills to promote safe home care, prevent unintentional mistakes and mitigate their impact on both care recipients and family caregivers.
designThis study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) methodology for scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Embase in April 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The review included studies on family caregivers in home-based care, focusing on education programmes promoting safe practices; quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods designs were eligible while studies on professional care or unrelated to home safety were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Extracted data included study characteristics, education type, target population and safety-related outcomes, which were summarised descriptively to map the available evidence.
results31 studies on home safety education programmes for family caregivers across oncological, neurological, chronic and paediatric conditions were identified, mostly from the USA and conducted in hospital, home and other health and care facilities. Randomised controlled trials predominated and were generally high quality. Education programmes targeting technical, daily living and self-care skills improved caregiver burden, knowledge, preparedness and quality of life although physical health outcomes showed limited change.
conclusionsEvidence indicates that structured education programmes enhance family caregivers' knowledge, preparedness, competence and psychological well-being, supporting safer home care. While current education programmes are mostly short-term and caregiver-centred, this review identifies core technical, daily life and self-care competencies to guide future education programmes, highlighting the need for co-designed, rigorously evaluated education programmes that include patient safety outcomes and caregiver emotional support.
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.