Kwok 2013.

Methods	A single‐blinded randomised controlled trial (recruitment February 2011‐March 2012)
Participants	Family caregivers of persons with dementia (PWD) in Hong Kong. Caregivers were the primary caregivers of care‐recipients who had a clinical diagnosis of dementia. The majority of caregivers were in the mean age category of between 41‐50 years (n = 21, 55.2%). The remaining study participant ages in years were 31‐40 (n = 3, 7.89%), 51‐60 (8, 21.05%), 61‐70 (n = 3, 7.89%), 71‐80 (n = 1, 2.63%) and > 80 (n = 2, 5.62%). The majority were female (n = 24, 63.15%) and males accounted for 28.94% (n = 11). The caregivers were children of the care‐recipients (n = 30, 78.9%), spouses (n = 4, 10.52%), grandchild (n = 1, 2.63%), son/daughter in‐law (n = 3, 7.89%). Education ranged from secondary education (n = 27, 71.05%), tertiary (n = 8, 21.05%), primary (n = 2, 5.26%) or Illiterate (n = 1, 2.63%). In the intervention group, caregiver monthly income ranged from $10,000 or less, n = 3 (16.7%), $ 10,001‐$20.000, n = 9 (50%), $20.001‐$30,000, n = 2 (11.1%), $30,001‐$40,000, n = 2 (11.1%), $40,001‐$50,000, n = 2 (11.1%). In the control group, monthly income was $10,000 or less, n = 5 (25%), $10,001‐$20.000, n = 9 (45%), $20.001‐$30,000, n = 2 (10%), $30,001‐$40,000, n = 2 (10%), $40,001‐$50,000, n = 1 (5%), and more than $50,000, n = 1 (5%). Caregivers spent between 1‐9 hours caregiving in the intervention group (1 hour (n = 3, 16.7%), 1‐3 hours (n = 2, 11.1%), 4‐6 hours (n = 6, 33.3%), 7‐9 hours (n = 1, 5.6%), 9 hours (n = 6, 33.3%)). In the control group, caregivers also spent between 1 and 9 hours caregiving (1 hour (n = 1, 5.3%), 1‐3 hours (n = 4, 21.1%), 4‐6 hours (n = 9, 47.7%), 7‐9 hours (n = 1, 5.3%), 9 hours (n = 4, 21.1%)).
Interventions	Intervention: A psychoeducation intervention plus a DVD that contained educational information about dementia caregiving (n = 20; of whom 18 received the intervention) Aim: To investigate the effectiveness of a telephone‐delivered psychoeducational intervention in supporting dementia caregivers in the community Interventionist(s): Registered social workers Mode of delivery: Telephone Duration:12 weeks (approximately 30 minutes per session, one session per week; the day and time of phone calls were flexible to the agreement between the participants and the social workers). Content: Participants in the intervention group were educated and given advice on topics related to dementia caregiving, including knowledge of dementia, skills of communicating with the patient, management of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), caregivers’ own emotional issues, resources available in the community, and long‐term care plan. The topics covered and the schedule of presentation were similar to typical psychoeducation interventions held 'on site' at community centres. The focus was on providing emotional support; directing caregivers to appropriate resources; encouraging them to attend to their own physical, emotional, and social needs; and educating them on strategies to cope with ongoing problems. Standardisation: no detail provided Comparison: Caregivers in the control group were given a DVD containing educational information about dementia caregiving (n = 22, of whom 20 remained as control).
Outcomes	1. Burden: Zarit Burden Interview Chinese version (ZBI) which consisted of 22 items pertaining to dementia caregiving in areas of perceived physical and psychological well‐being, social life, and finances. The participants indicated, on a 5‐point scale (0 = not at all to 4 = nearly always) during pretest and post‐test, how often they experienced distress resulting from caring for a relative with dementia. Higher scores indicated greater burden. 2. Health status and well‐being (self‐efficacy): Chinese version of The Revised Scale for Care giving Self Efficacy: Obtaining respite (SE‐OR), Responding to Disturbing Behaviours (SE‐RDB), Controlling Upsetting Thoughts (SE‐CUT). Higher scores indicated greater self‐efficacy. Outcome data were collected at the end of intervention i.e. approximately 3 months after the pretest.
Notes	For the outcome self‐efficacy the results for the sub‐scale 'Responding to Disturbing Behaviours (SE‐RDB)' were used in the analysis. Funding source: none stated Unpublished information requested and received at the data screening stage
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A "computerised randomisation program" was used (p.1192).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to make judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unable to blind due to nature of the intervention
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	"...research assistant blind to group assignment" (p.1192)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Overall attrition (for each group; with reasons) very low, and balanced (p.1194)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All outcomes reported (p.1195, table 4)
Other bias	Low risk	No significant differences at baseline on demographic variables and baseline measures (p.1194, table 2)