痴呆照顾者干预:随机对照试验中照顾者结果和工具的系统回顾

A. Pendergrass, C. Becker, M. Hautzinger, K. Pfeiffer
{"title":"痴呆照顾者干预:随机对照试验中照顾者结果和工具的系统回顾","authors":"A. Pendergrass, C. Becker, M. Hautzinger, K. Pfeiffer","doi":"10.4172/1522-4821.1000195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A variety of psychosocial interventions have been developed to support dementia caregivers. Compar- ing positive effects on caregivers across these intervention studies are difficult because of the diverse endpoints. The objectives of this review were: (1) to show what types of interventions were conducted in international randomized controlled trails with dementia caregivers; (2) to provide an overview of what main caregiver outcome dimensions can be categorized; and (3) what validated instruments are most frequently used to assess these outcomes. A sys- tematic, computerized literature search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EBSCO, and PsycINFO. Records of interest were randomized controlled trials for informal caregivers of home dwelling care recipients with any type of dementia. In the 69 identified studies 82 different validated assessments were used, which were categorized in 15 dimensions. About two out of three studies examined psychoeducational interventions. The five most prevalent outcomes were: depressive symptoms (N = 34); burden (N = 33); self-efficacy/coping/mastery (N = 19); emotional distress (N = 19); and quality of life (N = 17). These outcomes were mostly assessed with: the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (N = 23); the Zarit Burden Interview (N = 24); the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (N = 4); the Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (N = 7); and the WHO Quality of Life (N = 5). This literature review serves as the first step to identify outcomes and assessments which have actually been used. An important next step to improve comparability between studies could be the development of taxonomy to classify and describe the key influential components of interventions in this research field.","PeriodicalId":358022,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dementia Caregiver Interventions: A Systematic Review of CaregiverOutcomes and Instruments in Randomized Controlled Trials\",\"authors\":\"A. Pendergrass, C. Becker, M. Hautzinger, K. Pfeiffer\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/1522-4821.1000195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A variety of psychosocial interventions have been developed to support dementia caregivers. Compar- ing positive effects on caregivers across these intervention studies are difficult because of the diverse endpoints. The objectives of this review were: (1) to show what types of interventions were conducted in international randomized controlled trails with dementia caregivers; (2) to provide an overview of what main caregiver outcome dimensions can be categorized; and (3) what validated instruments are most frequently used to assess these outcomes. A sys- tematic, computerized literature search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EBSCO, and PsycINFO. Records of interest were randomized controlled trials for informal caregivers of home dwelling care recipients with any type of dementia. In the 69 identified studies 82 different validated assessments were used, which were categorized in 15 dimensions. About two out of three studies examined psychoeducational interventions. The five most prevalent outcomes were: depressive symptoms (N = 34); burden (N = 33); self-efficacy/coping/mastery (N = 19); emotional distress (N = 19); and quality of life (N = 17). These outcomes were mostly assessed with: the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (N = 23); the Zarit Burden Interview (N = 24); the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (N = 4); the Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (N = 7); and the WHO Quality of Life (N = 5). This literature review serves as the first step to identify outcomes and assessments which have actually been used. An important next step to improve comparability between studies could be the development of taxonomy to classify and describe the key influential components of interventions in this research field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":358022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience\",\"volume\":\"116 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/1522-4821.1000195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Emergency Mental Health and Human Resilience","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/1522-4821.1000195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

已经开发了各种社会心理干预措施来支持痴呆症护理人员。比较这些干预研究对护理人员的积极影响是困难的,因为终点不同。本综述的目的是:(1)显示在国际随机对照试验中对痴呆症护理人员进行了哪些类型的干预;(2)概述可分类的主要照顾者结局维度;(3)哪些经过验证的工具最常用于评估这些结果。利用PubMed、Medline、EBSCO和PsycINFO等电子数据库进行系统的计算机文献检索。记录的兴趣是随机对照试验的非正式照顾者的家庭居住护理接受者与任何类型的痴呆。在69项确定的研究中,使用了82种不同的有效评估,分为15个维度。大约三分之二的研究考察了心理教育干预。五种最常见的结局是:抑郁症状(N = 34);负荷(N = 33);自我效能/应对/掌握(N = 19);情绪困扰(N = 19);和生活质量(N = 17)。这些结果主要通过以下方法进行评估:流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(N = 23);Zarit Burden访谈(N = 24);修订护理自我效能感量表(N = 4);Cohen感知压力量表(N = 7);和世卫组织生活质量(N = 5)。本文献综述是确定实际使用的结果和评估的第一步。提高研究之间可比性的一个重要的下一步可能是分类法的发展,以分类和描述该研究领域干预措施的关键影响因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dementia Caregiver Interventions: A Systematic Review of CaregiverOutcomes and Instruments in Randomized Controlled Trials
A variety of psychosocial interventions have been developed to support dementia caregivers. Compar- ing positive effects on caregivers across these intervention studies are difficult because of the diverse endpoints. The objectives of this review were: (1) to show what types of interventions were conducted in international randomized controlled trails with dementia caregivers; (2) to provide an overview of what main caregiver outcome dimensions can be categorized; and (3) what validated instruments are most frequently used to assess these outcomes. A sys- tematic, computerized literature search was conducted using the electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EBSCO, and PsycINFO. Records of interest were randomized controlled trials for informal caregivers of home dwelling care recipients with any type of dementia. In the 69 identified studies 82 different validated assessments were used, which were categorized in 15 dimensions. About two out of three studies examined psychoeducational interventions. The five most prevalent outcomes were: depressive symptoms (N = 34); burden (N = 33); self-efficacy/coping/mastery (N = 19); emotional distress (N = 19); and quality of life (N = 17). These outcomes were mostly assessed with: the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (N = 23); the Zarit Burden Interview (N = 24); the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (N = 4); the Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (N = 7); and the WHO Quality of Life (N = 5). This literature review serves as the first step to identify outcomes and assessments which have actually been used. An important next step to improve comparability between studies could be the development of taxonomy to classify and describe the key influential components of interventions in this research field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信