Table 2.
Outcomes Reported in Trials Comparing Interventions With Caregiver Component Versus Usual Care or Wait List Control.
| Author, year | na | Study qualityb | Physical functioning | Cognitive function | Quality of life/overall functioning | Symptom management/control | Depression/anxiety | Utilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caregiver training interventions (n = 7) | ||||||||
| Burgener 1998 (Burgener, Bakas, Murray, Dunahee, & Tossey, 1998)c | 54 | Poor | ± | ± | ||||
| Gitlin 2001 (Gitlin, Corcoran, Winter, Boyce, & Hauck, 2001) | 202 | Poor | ↔/↑ | ↔/↑ | ||||
| Gitlin 2008 (Gitlin et al., 2008) | 60 | Good | ↔ | ↔/↑ | ↔ | |||
| Martin-Cook 2005 (Martin-Cook, Davis, Hynan, & Weiner, 2005) | 47 | Poor | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Quayhagen 2000 (Quayhagen et al., 2000)c | 103 | Poor | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Teri 2005 (Teri, McCurry, Logsdon, & Gibbons, 2005) | 95 | Fair | ↔/↑ | ↔/↑ | ||||
| Wright 2001 (Wright, Litaker, Laraia, & DeAndrade, 2001) | 93 | Poor | ↔ | ± | ↔ | ↔ | ||
| Caregiver training and support interventions (n = 7) | ||||||||
| Brodaty 2009 (Brodaty, Mittelman, Gibson, Seeher, & Burns, 2009) | 52 | Poor | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Gitlin 2010 (Gitlin, Winter, Dennis, Hodgson, & Hauck, 2010b) | 272 | Fair | ±/↑ | |||||
| Mittelman 2004 (Mittelman, Roth, Haley, & Zarit, 2004) 2006 (Mittelman, Haley, Clay, & Roth, 2006) | 406 | Good | ± | ↔ | ↔/↑ | |||
| Ostwald 1999 (Ostwald, Hepburn, Caron, Burns, & Mantell, 1999) | 117 | Good | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Schmitter-Edgecombe 2014 (Schmitter-Edgecombe & Dyck, 2014) | 55 | Good | ↔/↑ | ↔/↑ | ↔ | |||
| Teri 1997 (Teri, Logsdon, Uomoto, & McCurry, 1997)c | 72 | Fair | ↔/↑ | ↔/↑ | ||||
| Wray 2010 (Wray et al., 2010) | 158 | Fair | ↔ | |||||
| Unique interventions with unique intervention targets (n = 6) | ||||||||
| Bass 2003 (Bass, Clark, Looman, McCarthy, & Eckert, 2003) | 182 | Fair | ↔ | |||||
| Camberg 1999 (Camberg et al., 1999)c | 54 | Fair | ↔ | |||||
| Logsdon 2010 (Logsdon et al., 2010) | 142 | Poor | ↔ | ↑ | ↑ | |||
| McCallion 1999 (McCallion, Toseland, & Freeman, 1999) | 66 | Fair | ↔/↑ | ↔/↑ | ||||
| Robison 2007 (Robison et al., 2007) | 388 | Poor | ↑ | |||||
| Teri 2003 (Teri et al., 2003) | 153 | Fair | ↔/↑ | ↑ | ↔ | |||
Source. Adapted from evidence report (Griffin et al, 2013).
Note. Ratings: ↑ = treatment significantly better than comparator; ↔ = no significant difference between intervention and comparator; ↓ = treatment significantly worse than comparator; ± = significance not reported or could not be determined; two ratings separated by “/” indicates multiple assessments were used, and the significance of outcomes varied across assessments.
Number randomized.
Good (low risk of bias): The trial reported adequate allocation concealment, a minimum of single blinding (participants or investigators or assessors are blinded), and that either intent-to-treat analysis was conducted or clear reasons for dropouts/attrition by group were provided. Fair (moderate risk of bias): The trial met or was unclear for allocation concealment and blinding with no more than one of the remaining domains (ITT, withdrawals) unmet. A trial with adequate allocation concealment that did not meet other domains was rated fair. Poor (high risk of bias): The trial had inadequate allocation concealment or blinding and/or clearly met only one of the established risks of bias domains.
Multi-arm trials that are also evaluated in KQ2.