MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917525812 · doi:10.1177/1471301219831530

Do interventions that include education on dementia progression improve knowledge, mental health and burden of family carers? A systematic review

2019· review· en· W2917525812 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kirsten Moore, Cheuk Yan Lee, Elizabeth L Sampson, Bridget Candy

Bibliographic record

VenueDementia · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMarie CurieAlzheimer SocietyAlzheimer's Society
KeywordsDementiaPsychological interventionPsycINFOCINAHLMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)PsychiatryDepression (economics)MEDLINEMeta-analysisMental healthCaregiver burdenDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aim The European Association of Palliative Care recommends that family carers need education on the progression of dementia. This systematic review aimed to explore whether interventions incorporating education regarding the progressive nature of dementia increased carers’ understanding of dementia and improved mental health and burden. Method MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched to April 2018. Randomised controlled trials with samples of family carers of someone with dementia were eligible. Included interventions involved a component aimed to increase the carer’s understanding of the progression of dementia. Outcomes of interest included: knowledge of dementia, depression, burden and pre-death grief. Results Searches identified 3221 unique citations of which 11 studies were eligible for review. Interventions ranged from 4 to 16 sessions of which 1 to 3 sessions focused on the progression of dementia. Knowledge: Two studies evaluated carers’ knowledge of dementia. One found no difference between the trial arms immediately after the intervention or three months later. The second found a significant intervention effect at the end of the intervention but not at three-month follow-up. Depression: Seven studies evaluated intervention effects on depression. Meta-analysis of three trials showed significant differences in mean follow-up scores favouring intervention over control. The remaining four studies did not show differences in depression between intervention and control groups. Burden: Nine studies evaluated burden and were examined in two meta-analyses (mean scores at follow-up and mean change scores from baseline to follow-up), neither of which found a benefit for intervention over control. Using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation system, we judged the quality of evidence to be very low for depression and low for burden, knowledge and pre-death grief, reducing our confidence in any of the effect estimates. Conclusion The evidence was not sufficient to support or refute the effectiveness of education on progression of dementia on carers’ knowledge and mental health.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.384 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207