eHealth and Web-Based Interventions for Informal Carers of People With Dementia in the Community: Umbrella Review.
eHealth and Web-Based Interventions for Informal Carers of People With Dementia in the Community: Umbrella Review.
复制标题
社区痴呆症患者非正式护理人员的电子健康和基于网络的干预措施：伞审查。
DOI：
10.2196/36727
复制
发表时间：
2022-07-22
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Lamers, Carolien
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Morgan, Bethan Naunton;Windle, Gill;Sharp, Rebecca;Lamers, Carolien
痴呆症的患病率正在增加，家庭成员作为非正式照顾者面临许多相关问题，包括情感，身体和经济困难。痴呆症患者尽可能长时间地住在家里是有好处的，因此，支持他们的非正式护理人员至关重要。通过基于互联网的干预措施支持照顾者的兴趣越来越大，这一点可以从关于这一主题的大量系统评价中得到证明。现在应该系统地审查这方面的工作，并提供一个文献综述。这项总括性审查旨在确定最有效的基于互联网的干预内容和交付方法，以支持那些照顾生活在社区中的痴呆症患者的人。PsycINFO、Web of Science、CINAHL、MEDLINE、科克伦图书馆和PubMed进行了系统性综述，以检查基于网络的干预措施对痴呆症患者非正式护理人员的有效性。共有3名评审员提取数据并评价论文质量。为了确定系统评价报告相同证据的程度，计算了其纳入研究之间的重叠比例。定性研究结果提取和报告。共纳入21篇论文。综述论文的质量以低到中等为主，10%（2/21）的论文为高质量。研究结果表明，多方面的干预措施是最有效的支持照顾者。这些包括认知行为疗法和放松策略，教育资源和在线支持小组的组合。在网上提供的干预措施，但包括与个人元素，如电话联系的会议，显示出最好的效果。在比较所有综述论文中综述的研究时，注意到中度重叠。然而，当将单个综述相互比较时，它们显示了所纳入研究的高度重叠。混合交付方法和干预内容在支持那些照顾痴呆症患者的人方面显示出最有效的结果。然而，许多文件没有区分不同干预内容或交付的结果;在得出结论时需要考虑这一点。审查中所包括的研究之间存在重叠。这表明目前缺乏关于基于网络的干预措施对照顾痴呆症患者的有效性的研究。所有文件的成果衡量标准也缺乏一致性。未来的研究可能涉及更新对这些干预措施的有效性的研究，同时区分不同的干预类型，从而为使用标准化措施制定指导方针，以比较干预措施的效果，并提高整体研究的科学质量。PROSPERO CRD42021241559; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?记录ID =241559
The prevalence of dementia is increasing, and there are many associated problems that family members face as informal carers, including emotional, physical, and financial difficulties. There are benefits for a person with dementia to live at home for as long as possible, and therefore, supporting their informal carers is crucial. The growing interest in supporting carers through internet-based interventions is evidenced by the volume of systematic reviews on this topic. It is now appropriate to systematically examine this body of work and provide an overview of the literature. This umbrella review aimed to identify the most effective internet-based intervention content and delivery method to support those caring for someone with dementia living in the community. PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched for systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of web-based interventions for informal carers of people with dementia. A total of 3 reviewers extracted data and evaluated the quality of the papers. To ascertain the extent to which the systematic reviews reported on the same evidence, the proportion of overlap between their included studies was calculated. Qualitative research findings were extracted and reported. A total of 21 papers were included in the study. The quality of the review papers was mainly rated as low to moderate, and 10% (2/21) of papers were of high quality. The findings suggest that multicomponent interventions were the most effective in supporting carers. These included combinations of cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation strategies, educational resources, and online support groups. Interventions that were delivered on the web but included sessions with a personal element, such as telephone contact, showed the best results. When comparing the studies reviewed in all the review papers, a moderate overlap was noted. However, when comparing individual reviews with each other, they showed a high overlap of the included studies. Mixed delivery methods and intervention content showed the most effective results in supporting those caring for people with dementia. However, many papers do not separate the results for differing intervention contents or delivery; this needs to be considered when drawing conclusions. There was an overlap among the studies included in the reviews. This suggests a lack of current research on the effectiveness of web-based interventions for people caring for a person with dementia. There was also a lack of consistency in the outcome measures across all papers. Future studies can involve updating research on the effectiveness of these interventions while distinguishing between different intervention types, thus creating guidelines for the use of standardized measures to enable comparisons of intervention effects and improve the scientific quality of the overall research. PROSPERO CRD42021241559; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=241559
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Hopwood J;Walker N;McDonagh L;Rait G;Walters K;Iliffe S;Ross J;Davies N
通讯作者：
Davies N
影响因子：
7.4
作者：
Leng M;Zhao Y;Xiao H;Li C;Wang Z
通讯作者：
Wang Z
影响因子：
--
作者：
Martinez-Alcala, Claudia I;Pliego-Pastrana, Patricia;Molina-Trinidad, Eva M
通讯作者：
Molina-Trinidad, Eva M
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
Lai, John;Widmar, Nicole O.
通讯作者：
Widmar, Nicole O.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Herron, R. V.;Wrathall, M. A.
通讯作者：
Wrathall, M. A.