↓ Skip to main content

Translating evidence to patient care through caregivers: a systematic review of caregiver-mediated interventions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Translating evidence to patient care through caregivers: a systematic review of caregiver-mediated interventions
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1097-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kirsten M. Fiest, Christiane Job McIntosh, Danielle Demiantschuk, Jeanna Parsons Leigh, Henry T. Stelfox

Abstract

Caregivers may promote the uptake of science into patient care and the practice of evidence-informed medicine. The purpose of this study was to determine whether caregiver-mediated (non-clinical caregiver-delivered) interventions are effective in improving patient, caregiver, provider, or health system outcomes. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Scopus databases from inception to February 27, 2017. Interventions (with a comparison group) reporting on a quality improvement intervention mediated by a caregiver and directed to a patient, in all ages and patient-care settings, were selected for inclusion. A three-category framework was developed to characterize caregiver-mediated interventions: inform (e.g., provide knowledge), activate (e.g., prompt action), and collaborate (e.g., lead to interaction between caregivers and other groups [e.g., care providers]). Fifty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 64% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most commonly assessed outcomes were patient- (n = 40) and caregiver-oriented (n = 33); few health system- (n = 10) and provider-oriented (n = 2) outcomes were reported. Patient outcomes (e.g., satisfaction) were most improved by caregiver-mediated interventions that provided condition and treatment education (e.g., symptom management information) and practical condition-management support (e.g., practicing medication protocol). Caregiver outcomes (e.g., stress-related/psychiatric outcomes) were most improved by interventions that activated caregiver roles (e.g., monitoring blood glucose) and provided information related to that action (e.g., why and how to monitor). The risk of bias was generally high, and the overall quality of the evidence was low-moderate, based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation ratings. There is a large body of research, including many RCTs, to support the use of caregiver-mediated interventions that inform and activate caregivers to improve patient and caregiver outcomes. Select caregiver-mediated interventions improve patient (inform-activate) and caregiver (inform-activate-collaborate) outcomes and should be considered by all researchers implementing patient- and family-oriented research. PROSPERO, CRD42016052509 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 39 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Psychology 8 7%
Engineering 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 46 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,345,823
of 23,692,259 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,130
of 3,586 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,634
of 327,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#45
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,692,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,586 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.5. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.