Feasibility, usability, and acceptability of psychoeducational videoconferencing interventions for informal caregivers: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
Elaine Sang, Karen B Hirschman, Kathryn H Bowles
PMID 38069607WHAT IT FOUND
Video-based psychoeducation for informal caregivers was generally feasible and acceptable, with good retention and satisfaction, but poor connectivity, irrelevant content, and competing caregiving duties could undermine participation.
It reports feasibility, not effectiveness.
Key findings
01Retention in the videoconferencing interventions ranged from 55.56% to 100% across 13 of the 14 studies.
02Caregivers in several studies were satisfied with the videoconferencing technology, but rural technical difficulties were a main reason for dissatisfaction.
03Delivery preferences were not uniform: 77% preferred videoconferencing in one survey, while 73% preferred telephone over videophone in another.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Some included trials were small, so retention and adherence estimates may overstate feasibility. All studies were conducted in Western countries, and many had mostly Caucasian caregivers. Preference surveys did not report how many caregivers completed them. The review focused on process outcomes and did not test whether interventions improved caregiver or patient health. Studies with single-session interventions and hospice or palliative care were excluded, so findings do not apply to those settings.
Declared interests
The supplied text includes a heading for funding and conflicts of interest and begins a conflict-of-interest statement, but the actual disclosure is not provided in the supplied text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that video-based psychoeducation improves caregiver burden, depression, or patient outcomes. This review reports feasibility, usability, and acceptability, not effectiveness.