MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3145258073 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005011

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

2021· review· en· W3145258073 on OpenAlexaff
Stephana J. Cherak, Brianna K. Rosgen, Mungunzul Amarbayan, Krista Wollny, Christopher J. Doig, Scott B. Patten, Henry T. Stelfox, Kirsten M. Fiest

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMental healthAnxietyMEDLINEMeta-analysisPopulationPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.026
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.537
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations47
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207