TABLE 3.

Characteristics of the family‐focused interventions (N = 8)

First author/Year /Country	Aim	Design and theoretical framework	Study population and setting	Description of the intervention and control	Primary/ secondary PROM outcomes	Results related to the aim of the systematic review
Bohart et al. (2018) Denmark Secondary analysis from the study by Jensen (2016)	To determine whether relatives benefit from a recovery programme intended for intensive care survivors	Multi‐centre non‐blinded two‐armed pragmatic randomized controlled trial Theory: No theoretical framework described	N = 181 Study group: N = 87 Control group: N = 94 Setting: 10 intensive care units	Study gr: Received a recovery programme consisting of three consultations by specially trained study nurses at the hospital + by telephone (5‐ & 10‐months post ICU) – supporting the patient in the constructing of an illness narrative. Control gr: Informational needs of patients and relatives and patient care (sedation, early mobilization, physical rehabilitation and ICU discharge without follow‐up).	Primary: HRQoL measured by the medical health survey short‐form 36 (mental component) at 12 months post ICU, secondary: HRQoL, sense of coherence, anxiety, depression (HADS), PTSD (Harvard Trauma Questionnaire) at 3 + 12 months post ICU.	No statistically significant differences were observed in primary or secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 12 months neither in Intention to treat or Per protocol analysis.
Chiang et al. (2017) China	To determine whether “education of families by tab” about the patient´s condition was more associated with improved anxiety, stress and depression levels than “education of families by routine”	Randomized controlled trial (RCT) Theory: No theoretical framework described	74 main family members: Study group: (EF‐T) N = 39 Control group (ET‐Routine): N = 35 Setting: Adult intensive care unit Public district hospital	Study gr: The EF‐T intervention contained two parts: General information about the ICU care and explanation of instruments used. 2: episodic explained depending on the needs of individual patients. Control gr: Received routine information, provision and education about patients’ condition. Explanation of clinical information through verbal communication with MFC».	Primary: The depression anxiety stress scale (DASS) & Communication and physical comfort scale	Significant reduction of overall stress level between the 2 groups (p < .05, medium effect size), but no significant effect when referring to interaction effect (p < .05). Significant interaction effect in depression between groups (p < .01). No significant difference in satisfaction between groups.
Mao et al. (2020) China	To evaluate the value of family empowerment in improving caring ability and preparedness of main caregivers and provide psychological support and rehabilitation nursing guidance for patients.	Randomized controlled trial Theory: Family empowerment?	N = 86 patients and their families Study group: N = 43 Control group: N = 43 Setting: Neurosurgery intensive care unit	Study gr: Three stages of family empowerment nursing; 1; psychological counselling at admission 2; process from 3 day after admission to 1 day before discharge (explore care problems), grasp psychological status, address negative emotions, and formulate a holistic care plan for the patient. 3; information before discharge on post‐operative problems and emergency treatment methods introduced to build confidence Control gr: Conventional nursing	Questionnaire after 6 weeks; SF 36 (quality of life) + family responsibility, treatment compliance and nursing satisfaction	Significantly higher scores in the study group on psychological nursing, comfortable services and necessary information (p < .05) compared to control group + sign higher scores in SF 36 scores in the study group compared to preintervention. Significantly better nursing satisfaction compliance scores and incidence of complications in the study group compared to controls (p < .05).
Mitchell et al. (2009) Australia	To evaluate the effect of a family centred nursing intervention on the perceptions of family members of critical care patients of family‐centred care as measured by respect, collaboration and support.	Pragmatic clinical trial with a non‐equivalent control group pretest‐post‐test design Theory: The Family Centered Care Model	N = 174 Study group: N = 99 Control group: N = 75, 1 self‐nominated family member per patient Setting: Combined surgical and medical critical care units – two teaching hospitals	Study gr: Nurses helped patients' family members participate in fundamental care – nurses clearly instructed in family‐centred care activities Control gr: Unchanged nursing care (another site)	−1 self‐reporting survey baseline + at 48 hr Adapted version of the family‐centred care Survey (measured respect, collaboration and support)	Partnering with patient´s family members to provide fundamental care to the patients significantly improved the respect, collaboration, support and overall scores on the family‐centred care survey at 48 hr.
Rodríguez‐Huerta et al. (2019) Spain	To evaluate whether an informative intervention by nursing professionals through short message service (SMS) improved patients' family members satisfaction with the intensive care experience.	Exploratory two‐armed randomised non‐pharmacological prospective study Theory: No theoretical framework described	N = 70 Study group: N = 34 Named contact persons Control group: N = 36 Setting: 20 bed ICU (cardiology, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery services)	Study gr: SMS information based on patients’ nursing assessment based on Virginia Henderson model for informing daily (12:00) between 3 and 8 days Control gr: Same attention and care as the study group participants without the informative SMS	Satisfaction level of named contact person the critical care family needs inventory questionnaire (CCFNI)	The CCFNI showed significant better scores in the intervention group compared to controls (p = .0012) = person that received SMS more satisfied than those who did not. Study participants regarded the SMS information as very helpful
Shelton et al. (2010) USA	Examined the effect of adding a full‐time family support coordinator to the surgical intensive care unit team on family satisfaction, length‐of‐stay and cost	Quasi‐experimental design in two phases Theory: No theoretical framework described	N = 227 Before intervention: N = 114 After intervention N = 113 Setting: Surgical intensive care unit SICU	Study gr Implementation of a family support coordinator (nurse) full time who had daily interaction with the families (10mos) Control gr: (baseline) Before intervention (8mos), Normal ICU staff	Critical care family assistance program family satisfaction survey	Implementation of the family support coordinator full time increased family satisfaction across a range of parameters. Largest difference in physician communication (p = .0034). Decreases in length‐of‐stay and costs were not statistically significant
Torke et al. (2016) USA	Conduct a pilot randomized controlled of family navigator (FN), a distinct nursing role to address family members' unmet communication needs early in the ICU stay	Randomized controlled pilot intervention trial Theory: Self Developed Conceptual Model (SDM)	N = 26 Study group: N = 13 surrogate/ patient pairs Control group: N = 13 surrogate/ patient pairs Setting: A tertiary referral hospital, intensive care unit ‐ 18 beds	Study group: Introductory meeting with FN, daily contact (>90% of patient days), information and 13 emotional support modules, family meeting and follow‐up phone calls Control group: Usual care:	Illness severity (decisional conflict scale), Patient health questionnaire (PHQ)(6–8 weeks) + the generalized anxiety disorder (GADs) scale + interviews (6–8 weeks)	No significant differences in severity of PHQ or GADs score between groups (stress, anxiety, depression, decision conflict or decision regret) between groups. Feasibility: Open‐ended comments from both surrogates and clinicians were uniformly positive
Ågren et al. (2019) Sweden	To investigate outcomes of a nurse‐led health promoting conversation intervention in families with a member who was formally critically ill.	Pilot randomized controlled trial (pre‐test/ post‐test design) Theory: The health promoting family conversation model‐derived from Salutogenic and constructivistic approaches	N = 17 families (45 members) Study group: 7 families Control group: 10 families Setting: Hospital in connection with a follow‐up visit	Study gr: Health‐promoting interventions Control gr: Receiving usual care	The general functioning sub scale, the family sence of coherence, the herth hope index and the medical outcome short form health survey, SF36 health0related quality of life, (HRQoL)	The intervention improved family function over time (p = .03), strengthened family well‐being in short‐term (p = .01) and increased perceived HRQoL. No effect on long‐term family well‐being regarding hope.