The Experiences of Informal Caregivers of People With Dementia in Web-Based Psychoeducation Programs: Systematic Review and Metasynthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers of people living with dementia experience a higher level of physical and mental stress compared with other types of caregivers. Psychoeducation programs are viewed as beneficial for building caregivers' knowledge and skills and for decreasing caregiver stress. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to synthesize the experiences and perceptions of informal caregivers of people with dementia when participating in web-based psychoeducation programs and the factors that enable and impede informal caregivers' engagement in web-based psychoeducation programs. METHODS: This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol of systematic review and meta-aggregation of qualitative studies. We searched 4 English databases, 4 Chinese databases, and 1 Arabic database in July 2021. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies written in English were included in this review. From these studies, 87 findings were extracted and grouped into 20 categories. These categories were further synthesized into 5 findings: web-based learning as an empowering experience, peer support, satisfactory and unsatisfactory program content, satisfactory and unsatisfactory technical design, and challenges encountered in web-based learning. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality and carefully designed web-based psychoeducation programs offered positive experiences for informal caregivers of people living with dementia. To meet broader caregiver education and support needs, program developers should consider information quality and relevancy, the support offered, individual needs, flexibility in delivery, and connectedness between peers and program facilitators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".