| Methods |
RCT, USA |
| Participants |
1375 direct care staff and home managers |
| Interventions |
1) Experimental: Caregiver support programme (CSP): 6 4 ‐ 5‐hour group training sessions for the house manager and 1 direct care staff person from each intervention group home (train the trainer approach) of participatory problem‐solving skills, influencing decision making and how to mobilise support from others at work.
2) Control: No intervention |
| Outcomes |
Social support, Organisational climate, SCL‐90‐R, Confidence in coping ability |
| Notes |
The study results are reported only as regression coefficients and thereby could not be entered into meta‐analysis. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
High risk |
"Half of the group homes within each participating agency were then randomly assigned to receive the CSP (the experimental group), and the other half did not (the control group). If an agency had an odd number of homes, the extra home was assigned to the experimental group." (p. 338) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not reported |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Not possible, self report |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
"Employees who were randomized into the experimental group but who had no exposure to the CSP were included in the analyses as members of the experimental group." (p. 342) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Unclear risk |
Results reported only as regression coefficients |
| Other bias |
Unclear risk |
We did not find any indications of other sources of bias. |
