4.4 Review

Supporting friends and family of adults with a primary brain tumour: A systematic review

期刊

HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE IN THE COMMUNITY
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 869-887

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hsc.13586

关键词

brain tumour; caregivers; carers; family; neuro-oncology; supportive care

资金

  1. Mark Hughes Foundation [G1901579]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review summarizes the limited work in supportive care for friends and family caregivers of adults with a primary brain tumour. Most interventions employed tailored psychoeducation and expert involvement, but only a few showed clinically significant improvements.
Expanding on the limited work in supportive care for friends and family caregivers of adults with a primary brain tumour, this review sought to examine all available evidence since 2010 on the efficacy and feasibility of supportive interventions for this population including non-controlled studies. A systematic review of the literature was conducted on the feasibility and effectiveness/efficacy of supportive interventions for brain cancer caregivers in line with PRISMA guidelines. 13 studies met the eligibility criteria and were identified for inclusion. Most interventions employed tailored psychoeducation, and expert involvement via psychotherapy or care coordination. Only two interventions demonstrated clinically significant improvements. Findings indicate that dyadic yoga programs, and programs that enhance caregiver mastery to manage patient behavioural problems, may lead to improvements in some clinical outcomes. Results highlight the diverse nature of supportive interventions and indicate that support for primary brain tumour caregivers is currently suboptimal. Our findings illustrate an overall low certainty of evidence, with a need for more adequately powered randomised controlled trials. As the complexities of brain cancer care-giving are an obstacle to standardised interventions, this review underscores the need for future trials to incorporate complimentary qualitative research methodologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据