Do Interventions Meet the Needs of Caregivers of Cardiac Patients?: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Interventions targeting the needs of caregivers of cardiac patients are few, and in most cases, no effect is found on caregivers' well-being. A closer look at the existing interventions will provide a solid foundation for future efforts to develop effective interventions targeted at caregivers of cardiac patients.

OBJECTIVE

The study's objective was to scrutinize and discuss interventions targeting caregivers of cardiac patients and contribute to reflections that will improve future interventions.

METHODS

Systematic scoping of the literature within the field was conducted through a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library from January 2011 to May 2022. The development of search terms and inclusion criteria was inspired by the Patient problem/population, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome approach, and the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions served as the underlying basis for the analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included. The interventions reported in the articles were generally not systematically developed and did not include field-specific, methodological, and theoretical reflections. Furthermore, the development process behind the studies seemed not to be transparent.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of systematic methodology and methodological transparency in the reviewed studies hinders further testing of interventions and might explain lack of evidence for effective interventions within the field. More systematic, needs-based, and well-documented interventions targeting caregivers of various kinds of cardiac patients are needed to develop the field to the benefit of caregivers, patients, and society.

The Impact of an Intervention to Improve Caregiver Contribution to Heart Failure Self-care on Caregiver Anxiety, Depression, Quality of Life, and Sleep

BACKGROUND

Better caregiver contribution to self-care in heart failure is associated with better patient outcomes. However, caregiver contribution to self-care is also associated with high anxiety and depression, poor quality of life, and poor sleep in caregivers. It is still unclear whether interventions that encourage caregivers to contribute more to patient self-care might increase caregivers' anxiety and depression and decrease their quality of life and sleep.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a motivational interview intervention aimed at improving caregiver contribution to self-care in heart failure on caregivers' anxiety, depression, quality of life, and sleep.

METHODS

This is a secondary outcome analysis of the MOTIVATE-HF trial. Patients with heart failure and their caregivers were randomized into arm 1 (motivational interview to patients), arm 2 (motivational interview to patients and caregivers), and arm 3 (standard care). Data were collected between June 2014 and October 2018. The article has been prepared following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.

RESULTS

A sample of 510 patient-caregiver dyads was enrolled. Over the year of the study, the levels of anxiety, depression, quality of life, and sleep in caregivers did not significantly change among the 3 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Motivational interview aimed at improving caregiver contribution to self-care does not seem to increase caregiver anxiety and depression, nor decrease their quality of life and sleep. Thus, such an intervention might be safely delivered to caregivers of patients with heart failure, although further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Multi-level correlates of received social support among heart transplant recipients in the international BRIGHT Study: a secondary analysis

AIMS

Social support is critical in follow-up of patients after heart transplant (HTx) and positively influences well-being and clinical outcomes such as medication adherence. The purpose of this study was to (i) explore received social support variation (emotional and practical) in HTx recipients at country and centre level and (ii) to assess multi-level correlates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Secondary data analysis of the multi-level cross-sectional BRIGHT study was conducted in 36 HTx centres in 11 countries. Received social support related to medication adherence was measured with emotional and practical sub-scales. The Conceptual Model of Social Networks and Health guided selection of patient, micro (interpersonal and psychosocial), meso (HTx centre) and macro-level (country health system) factors. Descriptive statistics, intraclass correlations, and sequential multiple ordinal mixed logistic regression analysis were used. A total of 1379 adult HTx recipients were included. Patient level correlates (female sex, living alone, and fewer depressive symptoms) and micro-level correlates (higher level of chronic disease management and trust in the healthcare team) were associated with better emotional social support. Similarly, patient level (living alone, younger age, and male sex), micro-level and meso-level (patient and clinician-rated higher level of chronic disease management) were associated with better practical social support. Social support varied at country and centre levels for emotional and practical dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Social support in HTx recipients varies by country, centre, and was associated with multi-level correlates. Qualitative and longitudinal studies are needed to understand influencing factors of social support for intervention development, improvement of social support, and clinical outcomes.

Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process

Although systematic reviews are the method of choice to synthesize scientific evidence, they can take years to complete and publish. Clinicians, managers, and policy-makers often need input from scientific evidence in a more timely and resource-efficient manner. For this purpose, rapid reviews are conducted. Rapid reviews are performed using an accelerated process. However, they should not be less systematic than standard systematic reviews, and the introduction of bias must be avoided. In this article, we describe what rapid reviews are, present their characteristics, give some examples, highlight potential pitfalls, and draw attention to the importance of evidence summaries in order to facilitate adoption in clinical decision-making.