Programmes Addressed to Informal Caregivers’ Needs: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

Background: Addressing informal caregivers’ needs is essential for ensuring quality healthcare and promoting citizen-centred care. This systematic review assessed current knowledge about programmes aimed at meeting the needs of informal caregivers of adults who are dependent on others for daily life activities. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, the electronic databases EBSCOhost Research Platform, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and The Virtual Health Library were searched for randomized experimental studies published between 2012 and 2022 that implemented programmes addressing informal caregivers’ needs to improve their experiences, health, and well-being. Quality was assessed using the standardized critical evaluation tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Two independent investigators performed the eligibility assessment and data extraction. Quantitative data on the effectiveness of interventions were collected, and the content of each intervention was synthesized and aggregated into categories, through narrative synthesis. Results: The majority of the included studies (n = 16) were conducted in European countries and implemented a structured intervention programme compared to the provision of usual care. The studies were of fair to high methodological quality, with a higher risk of bias related to blinding. The results supported the achievement of favourable health outcomes among informal caregivers, namely improvements in mental health (n = 3) and quality of life (n = 3) and a decrease in psychological symptomatology (n = 5) and burden (n = 3). None of the interventions reported adverse outcomes; however, five studies did not describe significant differences in the outcomes assessed after the implementation of the programmes. Interventions focusing on training and educating caregivers (n = 14) and cognitive–behavioural strategies (n = 7) were the most common, while programmes focusing on emotional and psychological support as a resource to improve caregivers’ psychological outcomes were scarce. Conclusions: This systematic review adds to the growing body of evidence and insight showing that programmes that address informal caregivers’ needs seem to contribute to better physical and psychological health outcomes through the promotion of caregivers’ educational support and the implementation of cognitive–behavioural strategies. Future research should implement methodologically robust cross-country programmes tailored to informal caregivers’ physical, emotional, psychosocial, societal, and educational needs throughout the care trajectory.