Psychological interventions for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Baruch, Ella; Pistrang, Nancy; Barker, Chris

doi:10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.077

Cited by 33 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results in line with the study done by Baruch, et al, (2018), who stated that the studied caregivers had good and satisfactory knowledge about the disorder.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Burden and Coping Patterns among Family Caregivers of Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Zaki

Morsi

2020

Egyptian Journal of Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These results in line with the study done by Baruch, et al, (2018), who stated that the studied caregivers had good and satisfactory knowledge about the disorder.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Burden and Coping Patterns among Family Caregivers of Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Zaki

Morsi

2020

Egyptian Journal of Health Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The current family inclusive interventions mostly focused on solving psychological distresses in family members 74–77. But our review shows that the impact is multidimensional which may need designing of multidimensional interventions: economic, school, social and psychological.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Multidimensional impact of severe mental illness on family members: systematic review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe impact of severe mental illnesses (SMIs) is not limited to the person with the illness but extends to their family members and the community where the patient comes from. In this review, we systematically analyse the available evidence of impacts of SMI on family members, including parents, grandparents, siblings, spouses and children.Data sourcesPubMed, PsycINFO, Embase and Global Index Medicus were searched from the inception of each database up to 9 November 2019. We also did manual searches of grey literature.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies that assessed the impacts of SMI on any family member. We excluded studies in admitted clinics and acute wards to rule out the acute effect of hospitalisation.Data extractionTwo reviewers extracted data independently using the Cochrane handbook guideline for systematic reviews and agreed on the final inclusion of identified studies.Risk of biasThe quality of the included studies was assessed using effective public health practice project quality assessment tool for quantitative studies.The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database.ResultsWe screened a total of 12 107 duplicate free articles and included 39 articles in the review. The multidimensional impact of SMI included physical health problems (sleeplessness, headache and extreme tiredness.), psychological difficulties (depression and other psychological problems) and socioeconomic drift (less likely to marry and higher divorce rate and greater food insecurity). Impacts on children included higher mortality, poor school performance and nutritional problems. However, the quality of one in five studies was considered weak.ConclusionsOur review indicated a high level of multidimensional impact across multiple generations. The serious nature of the impact calls for interventions to address the multidimensional and multigenerational impact of SMI, particularly in low/middle-income countries. Given the relatively high number of studies rated methodologically weak, more robust studies are indicated.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018064123.

show abstract

“…Many varieties of interventions have been developed that are aimed at providing support to carers or to family carers/members. Some studies have tended to focus on a particular type of support intervention, such as psychosocial interventions [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], education and training, support [13,[22][23][24][25][26][27], respite care [24,[28][29][30], or patient-focused and multicomponent interventions [31][32][33][34]. Although some support interventions for informal carers have been reported to reduce the burden of informal care provision [26], there is a need for further documentation of the value-for-money of these interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost–Utility Analyses of Interventions for Informal Carers: A Systematic and Critical Review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Demographic and epidemiological changes place an increasing reliance on informal carers. Some support programmes exist, but funding is often limited. There is a need for economic evaluation of interventions for carers to assist policymakers in prioritising carer support.Objective To systematically review and critically appraise cost-utility analyses of interventions for informal carers, in order to assess the methods employed and the quality of the reporting. Methods A systematic review of databases was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and Econlit of items published between 1950 and February 2019. Published studies were selected if they involved a cost-utility analysis of an intervention mainly or jointly targeting informal carers. The reporting quality of economic analyses was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Results An initial set of 1,364 potentially relevant studies was identified. The titles and the abstracts were then screened, resulting in the identification of 62 full-text articles that warranted further assessment of their eligibility. Of these, 20 economic evaluations of informal carer interventions met the inclusion criteria. The main geographical area was the UK (N = 11). These studies were conducted in mental and/or behavioural (N = 15), cardiovascular (N = 3), or cancer (N = 2) clinical fields. These cost-utility analyses were based on randomized clinical trials (N = 16) and on observational studies (N = 4), of which only one presented a Markov model-based economic evaluation. Four of the six psychological interventions were deemed to be cost-effective versus two of the four education/support interventions, and four of the nine training/support interventions. Two articles achieved a CHEERS score of 100% and nine of the economic evaluations achieved a score of 85% in terms of the CHEERS criteria for high-quality economic studies.Conclusions Our critical review highlights the lack of cost-utility analyses of interventions to support informal carers. However, it also shows the relative prominence of good reporting practices in these analyses that other studies might be able to build on.

show abstract

Psychological interventions for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 33 publications

References 37 publications

Burden and Coping Patterns among Family Caregivers of Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Burden and Coping Patterns among Family Caregivers of Patients with Bipolar Disorder

Multidimensional impact of severe mental illness on family members: systematic review

Cost–Utility Analyses of Interventions for Informal Carers: A Systematic and Critical Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About