Table 3.
Results reported from included studies.
| Authors | Outcome Measure | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Lee et al. [28] | HK-LIADL Scale (self-management) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant |
| Liao et al. [29] | LIADL (self-management) | Significant group and group by time interaction effects, in favor of the experimental group (group, p < 0.001, ƞ2p = 0.87; interaction, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.217). |
| McCarron et al. [30] | PES-AD (social participation) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant |
| DQoL (social participation) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant | |
| Mrakic-Sposta et al. [31] | FAQ (self-management) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant |
| Nishihura et al. [32] | Semi-structured interviews (self-management) | SSI results not fully reported. Summary statement that positive self-management behavior changes were observed by caregivers in intervention group |
| Park and Park. [33] | SF-36 (self-management and social participation) | Role-emotional subscale: Significant group-by-time effect in favor of NCT (4.18 (95%CI 3.72 to 4.63), ƞ2p = 0.821 Role-physical subscale: Effect of intervention not statistically significant Social functioning subscale: Effect of intervention not statistically significant |
| Pietilä et al. [34] | ADCS-ADL (self-management) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant |
| BDI-II (caregiver) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant | |
| WHOQOL-BREF (caregiver) | Effect of intervention not statistically significant | |
| COPE index (caregiver) | Subscales analyzed separately. Significant improvement in intervention group vs. control with respect to positive attitudes (p = 0.023). Effect size not reported. No statistically significant differences on other subscales. |
|
| Silva et al. [35] | IAFAI (self-management) | Global scores: statistically significant visit effect (F[2,43] = 16.26, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.28) and group by visit interaction (F[2,43] = 8.71, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.29). IADL familiar subscale: statistically significant visit effect (F[2,43] = 5.31, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.11) and group by visit interaction (F[2,43] = 5.40, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.21). IADL advanced subscale: statistically significant visit effect (F[2,43] = 11.74, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.22) and group by visit interaction (F[2,43] = 4.83, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.19). All reported significant effects demonstrated improvements in intervention group vs control |
| WHOQOL-OLD * (social participation) | No subscale analyses for social participation reported. Overall, effect of intervention not statistically significant |
|
| Vanoh et al. [36] | WHODAS 2.0 (self-management and social participation) | No subscale analyses for social participation and self-management reported. Significant group, time, and interaction effects, in favor of the intervention group (group, p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.341; Time, p < 0.05, ƞ2p = 0.128; interaction p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.191) |
| MOSS (social participation) | The four subscales were analyzed separately. Significant group by time interaction effects for informational support (p < 0.05, ƞ2p = 0.123) and tangible support (p < 0.01, ƞ2p = 0.186). No statistically significant group, time, or interaction effects with respect to positive social interaction or affective support |
|
| Three-item loneliness scale (social participation) | Significant effect of group (p < 0.05, ƞ2p = 0.184) but no statistically significant time or interaction effects |
* Social participation subscale relevant.