Cochrane · systematic review · CD006440
Remotely delivered information, training and support for informal caregivers of people with dementia
González-Fraile, E, Ballesteros, J, Rueda, J-R, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
Dementia and Cognitive ImprovementAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
11
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 8.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 16.7%Low 3 · 25%Moderate 6 · 50%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Complex information, support and training interventions compared to usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations for informal caregivers of people with dementia
Population: Informal caregivers of people with dementia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Caregiver burden Complex information, support and training interventions vs usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 597 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caregiver mood Complex information, support and training interventions vs usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 638 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caregiver health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) Complex information, support and training interventions vs usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 311 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Dropouts for any reason Complex information, support and training interventions vs usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations | RR 1.15 [0.87, 1.53] | 8 studies · 661 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Use of health and social resources Complex information, support and training interventions vs usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations | Rate ratio 1.05 [0.93, 1.19] | 1 study · 4776 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Institutional care ‐ nursing home placement Complex information, support and training interventions vs usual treatment, waiting list or attention control informations | RR 0.59 [0.11, 3.11] | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Complex information, support and training interventions compared to information provision only for informal caregivers of people with dementia
Population: Informal caregivers of people with dementia
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Caregiver burden Complex information, support and training interventions vs information provision only | no estimate extracted | 9 studies · 650 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caregiver mood Complex information, support and training interventions vs information provision only | no estimate extracted | 11 studies · 1100 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Caregiver health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) Complex information, support and training interventions vs information provision only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 257 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Dropouts for any reason Complex information, support and training interventions vs information provision only | RR 1.51 [1.04, 2.2] | 12 studies · 1266 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Use of health and social resources ‐ not reported Complex information, support and training interventions vs information provision only | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Institutional care ‐ nursing home placement Complex information, support and training interventions vs information provision only | RR 2.67 [0.12, 60.93] | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |