Does physical activity reduce burden in carers of people with dementia? A literature review

Orgeta, Vasiliki; Miranda‐Castillo, Claudia

doi:10.1002/gps.4060

Cited by 57 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…26 A majority of studies in another review 20 was reported as being of high or moderate quality, and a further review presented an average quality score of 75 out of 100. 32 In other reviews, the quality of primary studies appeared to be moderate, 23,25,29 …”

Section: Quality Of the Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Of the reviews, 14 [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] focused on interventions for carers of people with dementia, four [33][34][35][36] focused on carers of people with cancer, four [37][38][39][40][41] focused on carers of people with stroke, three [42][43][44] focused on carers of people with various conditions at the end of life and two 45,46 focused on carers of people with mental health problems. Not all reviews reported the geographic location of the included primary studies.…”

Section: Overview Of the High-quality Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21,24,26,40,44,45 Other (more specific) interventions included stroke liaison workers, 39 volunteer mentoring, 32 meditation-based activity, 23 art-making classes 33 and home-based exercise. 29 Control or comparator groups (when reported) were usual care, no control, other active intervention, wait list or placebo. The details of what was delivered to control groups were sparse or were not reported.…”

Section: Overview Of the High-quality Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A quality assessment of primary studies was carried out in 25 [19][20][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46] of the 27 included reviews. In most cases, it was possible to determine at least the overall quality of the included studies.…”

Section: Quality Of the Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Dalton

Thomas

Harden

et al. 2018

J Health Serv Res Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Quality Of the Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Overview Of the High-quality Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of the High-quality Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quality Of the Primary Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Dalton

Thomas

Harden

et al. 2018

J Health Serv Res Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Overview Of the High-quality Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Thomas

Dalton

Harden

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPolicy and research interest in carers continues to grow. A previous meta-review, published in 2010, by Parkeret al.(Parker G, Arksey H, Harden M.Meta-review of International Evidence on Interventions to Support Carers. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York; 2010) found little compelling evidence of effectiveness about specific interventions and costs.ObjectiveTo update what is known about effective interventions to support carers of ill, disabled or older adults.DesignRapid meta-review.SettingAny relevant to the UK health and social care system.ParticipantsCarers (who provide support on an unpaid basis) of adults who are ill, disabled or older.InterventionsAny intervention primarily aimed at carers.Main outcome measuresAny direct outcome for carers.Data sourcesDatabase searches (including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Social Care Online) for systematic reviews published from January 2009 to 2016.Review methodsWe used EndNote X7.4 (Thomson Reuters, CA, USA) to screen titles and abstracts. Final decisions on the inclusion of papers were made by two reviewers independently, using a Microsoft Excel®2013 spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). We carried out a narrative synthesis structured by patient condition and by seven outcomes of interest. We assessed the quality of the included systematic reviews using established criteria. We invited a user group of carers to give their views on the overall findings of our review.ResultsSixty-one systematic reviews were included (27 of high quality, 25 of medium quality and nine of low quality). Patterns in the literature were similar to those in earlier work. The quality of reviews had improved, but primary studies remained limited in quality and quantity. Of the high-quality reviews, 14 focused on carers of people with dementia, four focused on carers of those with cancer, four focused on carers of people with stroke, three focused on carers of those at the end of life with various conditions and two focused on carers of people with mental health problems. Multicomponent interventions featured prominently, emphasising psychosocial or psychoeducational content, education and training. Multiple outcomes were explored, primarily in mental health, burden and stress, and well-being or quality of life. Negative effects following respite care were unsupported by our user group. As with earlier work, we found little evidence on intervention cost-effectiveness. No differences in review topics were found across high-, medium- and low-quality reviews.LimitationsThe nature of meta-reviews precludes definitive conclusions about intervention effectiveness, for whom and why. Many of the included reviews were small in size and authors generally relied on small numbers of studies to underpin their conclusions. The meta-review was restricted to English-language publications. Short timescales prevented any investigation of the overlap of primary studies, and growth in the evidence base since the original meta-review meant that post-protocol decisions were necessary.ConclusionsThere is no ‘one size fits all’ intervention to support carers. Potential exists for effective support in specific groups of carers. This includes shared learning, cognitive reframing, meditation and computer-delivered psychosocial support for carers of people with dementia, and psychosocial interventions, art therapy and counselling for carers of people with cancer. Counselling may also help carers of people with stroke. The effectiveness of respite care remains a paradox, given the apparent conflict between the empirical evidence and the views of carers.Future workMore good-quality, theory-based, primary research is warranted. Evidence is needed on the differential impact of interventions for various types of carers (including young carers and carers from minority groups), and on the effectiveness of constituent parts in multicomponent programmes. Further research triangulating qualitative and quantitative evidence on respite care is urgently required. The overlap of primary studies was not formally investigated in our review, and this warrants future evaluation.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033367.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Stress‐Busting Program for Family Caregivers: Validation of the Spanish version using biomarkers and quality‐of‐life measures

Arevalo-Flechas

Flores

Wang

et al. 2022

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hispanic family caregivers of people with dementia experience higher levels of stress compared to non-Hispanic white caregivers. Long-term stress causes depression, caregiver burden, cellular aging, and dysregulation of the immune, nervous, and endocrine systems. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of the Spanish version of the English Stress-Busting Program (SBP) for Family Caregivers by determining changes in quality-of-life measures and biomarkers. Thirty-six caregivers completed the SBP in the language of their choice (14 Spanish-speaking Hispanics [HS], 8 English-speaking Hispanics [HE], and 14 non-Hispanic English[NHE] speakers). Quality-of-life measures included the Perceived Stress Scale, the Screen for Caregiver Burden, and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. Assessment of oral health and immunity included salivary flow rate, pH, buffer capacity, total protein, and secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA). Indicators of stress (salivary cortisol), inflammation (C-reactive protein), and cellular aging (leukocyte telomere length) were assessed. Following completion of the SBP, the Spanishspeaking group had less depression and caregiver burden along with improved oral health and reduced cellular aging. When comparing baseline values to postintervention, all three groups showed significant improvement in subjective caregiver burden. When the data from all three groups were combined, biomarkers that showed improvement after nine weeks of SBP included the stress hormone cortisol, salivary pH, and leukocyte telomere length. The results indicate that the Spanish SBP reduces caregiver stress as assessed by quality-of-life indicators and biomarkers. The Spanish SBP can help to mitigate health disparities in Hispanic Spanish-speaking caregivers.

show abstract

Does physical activity reduce burden in carers of people with dementia? A literature review

Cited by 57 publications

References 64 publications

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Stress‐Busting Program for Family Caregivers: Validation of the Spanish version using biomarkers and quality‐of‐life measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About