CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155Nursing care and researchPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic Care

A systematic review of interventions for family caregivers who care for patients with advanced cancer at home

Open access
Ahn, Soojung, Romo, Rafael D., Campbell, Cathy L.·2020·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.012PMC PMC7311285
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To examine the characteristics of interventions to support family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer. Methods Five databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) were searched for English language articles of intervention studies utilizing randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs, reporting caregiver-related outcomes of interventions for family caregivers caring for patients with advanced cancer at home. Results A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Based on these studies, the types of interventions were categorized into psychosocial, educational, or both. The characteristics of interventions varied. Most interventions demonstrated statistically significant results of reducing psychological distress and caregiving burden and improving quality of life, self-efficacy, and competence for caregiving. However, there was inconsistency in the use of measures. Conclusions Most studies showed positive effects of the interventions on caregiver-specific outcomes, yet direct comparisons of the effectiveness were limited. There is a lack of research aimed to support family caregivers' physical health. Practice implications Given caregivers' needs to maintain their wellbeing and the positive effects of support for them, research examining long-term efficacy of interventions and measuring objective health outcomes with rigorous quality of studies is still needed for better outcomes for family caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.012

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Las intervenciones psicosociales y educativas tienen efectos estadísticamente significativos sobre la carga del cuidador, la angustia psicológica, la mejora de la calidad de vida, la competencia de cuidado y la autoeficacia.

    “Tanto las intervenciones psicosociales como educativas mostraron efectos significativos estadísticamente sobre la CdC, la angustia psicológica, la mejora de la CdV, la competencia de cuidado y la autoeficacia.”

    From Sobrecarga de trabajo en cuidadores de pacientes en cuidados paliativos oncológicos: Una revisión bibliográfica (2023) · cites this paper as Ahn et al., 2020

    The Results (Effects of Interventions; page not provided) report significant reductions in caregiving burden in four studies, generally positive effects on psychological distress, and positive effects on self-efficacy and caregiving competence. But only three of six studies assessing quality of life found positive outcomes, and some effects did not persist. The claim omits these qualifications and implies that psychosocial and educational interventions each showed statistically significant effects across all five outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ahn, S., Romo, R. D., & Campbell, C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Dominican University of California (US)
Corresponding author
Ahn, Soojung
ORCID
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
103
Issue
8
Pages
1518-1530
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.012
PMC
PMC7311285
OpenAlex
W3011452769
Cited by
155
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 8
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Dominican Scholar (Dominican University of California) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute on Aging
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
family caregivers, advanced cancer, home care, caregiver interventions, psychosocial interventions, educational intervention, caregiver burden, psychological distress, quality of life, self-efficacy, caregiver competence, caregiver well-being
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Family, Humans, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, Social Support, Stress, Psychological, Terminal Care, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review