Table 4.
Outcomes Reported in Trials Comparing Interventions With Caregiver Component to Alternative Caregiver or Patient Interventions.
| Author, year | na | Study qualityb | Physical functioning | Cognitive function | Quality of life/overall functioning | Symptom management/control | Depression/anxiety | Utilization |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caregiver training interventions (n = 5) | ||||||||
| Bourgeois 2002 (Bourgeois, Schulz, Burgio, & Beach, 2002) | 63 | Good | ↔\↑ | |||||
| Burgener 1998 (Burgener, Bakas, Murray, Dunahee, & Tossey, 1998) | 54 | Poor | ± | ± | ||||
| Chang 1999 (Chang, 1999) | 65 | Poor | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Gerdner 2002 (Gerdner, Buckwalter, & Reed, 2002) | 241 | Fair | ± | ± | ||||
| Quayhagen 2000 (Quayhagen et al., 2000) | 103 | Poor | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Caregiver training and support interventions (n = 7) | ||||||||
| Belle 2006 (Belle et al., 2006) | 518 | Fair | ↑ | ↔ | ↔ | |||
| Burns 2003 (Burns, Nichols, Martindale-Adams, Graney, & Lummus, 2003) | 76 | Poor | ↔ | |||||
| Gaugler 2013 (Gaugler, Reese, & Mittelman, 2013) | 107 | Good | ↑ | |||||
| Gitlin 2003 (Gitlin et al., 2003) | 255 | Fair | ↔ | ↔ | ↔ | |||
| Gitlin 2010 (Gitlin, Winter, Dennis, Hodgson, & Hauck, 2010a) | 237 | Good | ↔\↑ | ↔ | ↔ | |||
| Gonyea 2006 (Gonyea, O’Connor, & Boyle, 2006) | 91 | Poor | ↔ | |||||
| Teri 1997 (Teri, Logsdon, Uomoto, & McCurry, 1997) | 72 | Fair | ↔ | ↔ | ||||
| Unique interventions with unique intervention targets (n = 3) | ||||||||
| Camberg 1999 (Camberg et al., 1999) | 54 | Fair | ↔ | |||||
| Jirovec 2001 (Jirovec & Templin, 2001) | 118 | Poor | ↔ | ↔/↑ | ||||
| McCurry 2005 (McCurry, Gibbons, Logsdon, Vitiello, & Teri, 2005) | 36 | Good | ↔ | ↔/↑ | ↔/↑ | |||
Source. Adapted from evidence report (Griffin et al, 2013).
Note. Bourgeois (Bourgeois et al., 2002) compared a caregiver intervention with a patient intervention; all other trials compared one caregiver-involved intervention with an alternative caregiver intervention. 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.