Reblin 2018.
| Methods | Randomised controlled trial (pilot) | |
| Participants |
Inclusion criteria: identified as the person who provided the most care for an adult diagnosed with primary malignant brain tumour; English speaking and reading; having an email address; aged >18 years Exclusion criteria: none specified. Authors clarified there were no specific exclusion criteria, other than not meeting inclusion criteria. Number randomised: 40; 30 intervention group, 10 control group Follow‐up: baseline, 3 weeks, 6 weeks Setting: National Cancer Institute‐designated comprehensive cancer centre in the US |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention group: eSNAP, a web‐based application which takes 10–15 minutes to help caregivers list people or groups who could help within 6 categories of support: 1. hands‐on; 2. informational; 3. communication; 4. financial; 5. emotional; and 6. self‐care. A network visualisation was provided to caregivers in PDF/print. Control group: care as usual |
|
| Outcomes |
Primary outcome (confirmed by authors)
Secondary outcomes:
|
|
| Notes | 100% neuro‐oncology (40 participants; 30 intervention group, 10 control group | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Method of randomisation not described in the report. Computer random number generator used (confirmed by authors). |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Not described in the report. Computer random number generator used (confirmed by authors). |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not possible due to nature of intervention. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Not described in the report. Analysis were performed blind (confirmed by authors). |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | 20% attrition at 6 weeks. No information provided on reasons for dropout or how missing data were handled in the report. Authors confirmed that within those who completed assessments, < 10% of data were missing and no data imputation was done. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No published protocol |