15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mental Health Interventions to Improve Psychological Outcomes in Informal Caregivers of Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*

      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.

          Abstract

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

          OBJECTIVES:

          Determine effect of mental health interventions on psychologic outcomes in informal caregivers of critically ill patients.

          DATA SOURCES:

          Searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from inception to October 31, 2019.

          STUDY SELECTION:

          Interventions for informal caregivers of critically ill patients in adult ICU, PICU, or neonatal ICU.

          DATA EXTRACTION:

          Two independent, blinded reviewers screened citations and extracted data. Random-effects models with inverse variance weighting pooled outcome data when suitable. Psychologic outcomes categorized: 1) negative (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, distress, and burden) or 2) positive (courage, humanity, justice, transcendence, temperance, and wisdom and knowledge). Stratification according to intervention type and patient population was performed.

          DATA SYNTHESIS:

          Of 11,201 studies, 102 interventional trials were included ( n = 12,676 informal caregivers). Interventions targeted caregiver experience ( n = 58), role ( n = 6), or support ( n = 38). Meta-analysis (56 randomized controlled trials; n = 22 [39%] in adult ICUs; n = 34 [61%] in neonatal ICU or PICU) demonstrated reduced anxiety (ratio of means = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87–0.97) and depression (ratio of means = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69–0.99), but not post-traumatic stress disorder (ratio of means = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80–1.04) or distress (ratio of means = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95–1.07) among informal caregivers randomized to mental health interventions compared with controls within 3 months post-ICU discharge. Increased humanity (ratio of means = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07–1.15), transcendence (ratio of means = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07–1.15), and caregiver burden (ratio of means = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05–1.12) were observed. No significant effects of mental health interventions observed after 3 months postdischarge.

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Mental health interventions for caregivers of critically ill patients improved short-term anxiety, depression, humanity, and transcendence while increasing burden. Clinicians should consider short-term prescriptions of mental health interventions to informal caregivers of critically ill patients with capacity to manage interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            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: not found

              Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

              The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Crit Care Med
                Crit Care Med
                CCM
                Critical Care Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0090-3493
                1530-0293
                19 August 2021
                September 2021
                : 49
                : 9
                : 1414-1426
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
                [2 ] Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary and Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.
                [3 ] O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
                [4 ] Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
                [5 ] Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
                [6 ] Department of Psychiatry, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
                Author notes
                For information regarding this article, E-mail: kmfiest@ 123456ucalgary.ca
                Article
                00004
                10.1097/CCM.0000000000005011
                8373445
                33826586
                e22b0a6c-1ab8-4cb5-ae41-56e1366f170f
                Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                Categories
                Feature Article
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                critical care,informal caregivers,intensive care unit,psychology,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article