4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Wie wirksam sind nicht-pharmakologische Interventionen für pflegende Angehörige? Ein systematisches Review mit Metaanalysen Translated title: How effective are non-pharmacological interventions for family caregivers? A systematic review with meta-analyses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Zusammenfassung

          Einleitung Die Pflege eines Angehörigen ist mit psychischen Erkrankungen und verminderter Lebensqualität der Pflegenden assoziiert. Das Ziel dieser systematischen Übersichtsarbeit war es, die Ergebnisse methodisch guter Interventionsstudien zur Wirksamkeit nicht-pharmakologischer Interventionen auf patientenrelevante Endpunkte bei pflegenden Angehörigen in Deutschland zusammenzufassen.

          Methodik In drei großen wissenschaftlichen Literaturdatenbanken suchten wir nach Interventionsstudien mit Kontrollgruppe und einem niedrigen oder moderaten Biasrisiko zur Wirksamkeit von nicht-pharmakologischen Interventionen für pflegende Angehörige in Deutschland.

          Ergebnis Unter 4.376 überprüften Publikationen wurden 10 Interventionsstudien mit guter methodischer Qualität identifiziert. Diese untersuchten Mehrkomponenteninterventionen bzw. kognitive Verhaltenstherapie für pflegende Angehörige von Menschen mit Demenz (8 Studien), Schlaganfall (1 Studie) und mit allgemeiner Pflegebedürftigkeit (1 Studie). Die Kontrollgruppen erhielten Informationsmaterial als Minimalintervention oder übliche Standardversorgung. In Metaanalysen zeigte sich 3–6 Monate nach Studienbeginn eine statistisch signifikante leichte Reduktion depressiver Symptome durch eine kognitive Verhaltenstherapie (Standardisierte Mittelwertedifferenz - 0,27; 95%-Konfidenzintervall - 0,44 – - 0,10), die jedoch nach 9–12 Monaten keine statistische Signifikanz mehr erreichte (- 0,21; - 0,51–0,09). Mehrkomponenteninterventionen zeigten weder nach 3–6 noch nach 9–12 Monaten Veränderungen depressiver Symptome (- 0,18; - 0,40 – 0,03 bzw. − 0,14; - 0,47 – 0.14). Dagegen besserte sich die psychische Lebensqualität der pflegenden Angehörigen in den Mehrkomponenteninterventionsgruppen statistisch signifikant im Vergleich zu den Kontrollgruppen: nach 3–6 Monaten leicht (0,28; 0,01–0,56) und nach 9–12 Monaten moderat (0,45; 0,09–0,82). Auf die körperliche Lebensqualität hatten die Interventionen keinen Einfluss.

          Schlussfolgerung Die Reduktion depressiver Symptome durch verhaltenstherapeutische Interventionen für pflegende Angehörige scheint nur gering und nicht nachhaltig zu sein. Die psychische Lebensqualität der Betroffenen konnte durch Mehrkomponenteninterventionen längerfristig verbessert werden. Bisher wissenschaftlich untersuchte Interventionen für pflegende Angehörige scheinen keine ausreichende und nachhaltige Wirkung zu erzielen. Größere Effekte könnten möglicherweise durch aufwändigere verhaltenspräventive Interventionen aber auch verhältnispräventive Maßnahmen erzielt werden.

          Abstract

          Introduction Informal caregiving is associated with mental disorders and reduced quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the results of methodologically high-quality intervention studies on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on patient-relevant outcomes for family caregivers in Germany.

          Method We searched three large scientific literature databases for intervention studies with a control group and a low or moderate risk of bias on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for family caregivers in Germany.

          Result Among 4,376 publications reviewed, 10 intervention studies with good methodological quality were identified. These investigated multi-component interventions or cognitive behavioral therapy for family caregivers of people with dementia (8 studies), stroke (1 study) and with general care dependency (1 study). The control groups received information material as a minimal intervention or usual standard care. Meta-analyses showed a statistically significant slight reduction in depressive symptoms 3–6 months after the start of the study as a result of cognitive behavioral therapy (standardized mean difference -0.27; 95% confidence interval -0.44 – -0.10), but this no longer reached statistical significance after 9–12 months (-0.21; -0.51 – 0.09). Multi-component interventions showed no changes in depressive symptoms either after 3–6 or after 9–12 months (-0.18; -0.40 – 0.03 and -0.14; -0.47 – 0.14, respectively). In contrast, the mental component of quality of life of family caregivers improved statistically significantly in the multi-component intervention groups compared to the control groups: slightly after 3–6 months (0.28; 0.01 – 0.56) and moderately after 9–12 months (0.45; 0.09 – 0.82). The interventions had no effect on the physical component of quality of life.

          Conclusion The reduction of depressive symptoms by behavioral therapy interventions for family caregivers appears to be only slight and not sustainable. The mental component of quality of life of people affected may be improved in the longer term by multi-component interventions. Current scientifically examined interventions for informal caregivers do not appear to have a sufficient and sustainable effect. Greater effects could possibly be achieved through more elaborate behavioral approaches, but also structural preventive measures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

              Background Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. Methods The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. Results The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. Conclusions The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Gesundheitswesen
                Gesundheitswesen
                10.1055/s-00000022
                Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband Der Arzte Des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                0941-3790
                1439-4421
                15 August 2024
                February 2025
                1 August 2024
                : 87
                : 2
                : 145-160
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Landesinstitut Gesundheit I, Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit, Erlangen, Germany
                [2 ]Institut für Klinische Epidemiologie und Biometrie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
                [3 ]Institut für Sozialmedizin, Epidemiologie und Gesundheitsökonomie, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [4 ]Zentrum für Klinische Studien Würzburg, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
                [5 ]Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz, München, Germany
                [6 ]Pettenkofer School of Public Health, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany
                Author notes
                Korrespondenzadresse Patrick Janson Institut für Evidenzbasierte Kurortmedizin und Gesundheitsförderung (IKOM)Bayerisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LGL)97688 Bad KissingenGermany patrick.janson@ 123456lgl.bayern.de
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3384-4360
                Article
                GESU-2023-12-1979-UA
                10.1055/a-2340-1560
                11849791
                39146966
                758fc556-9e15-4c4f-8921-4f090e770a7a
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Übersichtsarbeit

                pflegende angehörige,interventionen,interventionsstudien,metaanalyse,systematisches review,informal caregivers,interventions,intervention studies,meta-analysis,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article