Cited by 857Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careFamily Support in Illness

Interventions with Family Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Open access
Northouse, Laurel L., Katapodi, Maria C., Song, Lixin, Zhang, Lingling, Mood, Darlene W.·2010·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

Family caregivers of cancer patients receive little preparation, information, or support to perform their caregiving role. However, their psychosocial needs must be addressed so they can maintain their own health and provide the best possible care to the patient. The purpose of this article is to analyze the types of interventions offered to family caregivers of cancer patients, and to determine the effect of these interventions on various caregiver outcomes. Meta-analysis was used to analyze data obtained from 29 randomized clinical trials published from 1983 through March 2009. Three types of interventions were offered to caregivers: psychoeducational, skills training, and therapeutic counseling. Most interventions were delivered jointly to patients and caregivers, but they varied considerably with regard to dose and duration. The majority of caregivers were female (64%) and Caucasian (84%), and ranged in age from 18 to 92 years (mean age, 55 years). Meta-analysis indicated that although these interventions had small to medium effects, they significantly reduced caregiver burden, improved caregivers' ability to cope, increased their self-efficacy, and improved aspects of their quality of life. Various intervention characteristics were also examined as potential moderators. Clinicians need to deliver research-tested interventions to help caregivers and patients cope effectively and maintain their quality of life.

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 · 10.3322/caac.20081

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Typically, generic caregiver interventions provide a range of information and coping skills training to help caregivers feel better equipped to manage the challenges of their role, which in turn might result in lowering depression and anxiety.

    “Typically, generic caregiver interventions provide a range of information and coping skills training to help caregivers feel better equipped to manage the challenges of their role, which in turn might result in lowering depression and anxiety.37,69”

    From Non-pharmacological Interventions for Caregivers with Depression and Caregivers of Care Recipients with Co-morbid Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The effect sizes for both depression and anxiety in the present meta-analysis were in the small to moderate range in comparison to mostly small effect sizes in previous meta-analyses.

    “However, the ESs for both depression and anxiety in the present meta-analysis were in the small to moderate range in comparison to mostly small ESs in previous meta-analyses.37,69”

    From Non-pharmacological Interventions for Caregivers with Depression and Caregivers of Care Recipients with Co-morbid Depression: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2021) · cites this paper as [69]

    In Results > Depression, Northouse et al. report small, nonsignificant effect sizes for caregiver depression. But the Discussion describes moderate effects on anxiety in prior meta-analyses, so this source does not support characterizing the previous findings for both depression and anxiety as mostly small. The citing authors’ description of their own meta-analysis is not a finding attributed to Northouse et al. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interventions dedicated to caregivers generally had small to medium effect sizes in reducing caregiver burden, alleviating psychological symptoms, and improving caregivers coping capabilities, self-efficacy and QoL.

    “Results from two meta-analyses [20, 21] suggest that interventions dedicated to caregivers generally had small to medium effect sizes in reducing caregiver burden, alleviating psychological symptoms, and improving caregivers coping capabilities, self-efficacy and QoL.”

    From It is time to address fear of cancer recurrence in family caregivers: protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a randomized pilot study of the online version of the Family Caregiver–Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT) (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Results and Discussion report small-to-moderate benefits for caregiver burden, coping, self-efficacy, and distress or anxiety. But the Discussion explicitly says interventions did not improve caregivers’ overall quality of life, only specific components; the Results also found no significant reduction in depression. The claim overgeneralizes the quality-of-life and psychological-symptom findings. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Based on a systematic review, an effect size of 0.3 is considered clinically meaningful for primary and secondary outcomes at 3 months post-intervention compared to WLCG.

    “Based on a systematic review of caregiver interventions [20], an ES 0.3 for the intervention group will be considered a clinically meaningful finding for the primary and secondary outcomes at 3 months post-intervention compared to those in the waitlist control group (WLCG).”

    From It is time to address fear of cancer recurrence in family caregivers: protocol for the feasibility and acceptability of a randomized pilot study of the online version of the Family Caregiver–Fear Of Recurrence Therapy (FC-FORT) (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Research Method sections describe a meta-analysis of caregiver interventions, calculate effect sizes against control groups, and include follow-up through three months. Statistical Analyses classifies g = 0.20 as small and g = 0.50 as medium, but does not establish 0.3 as a clinically meaningful threshold or specify a waitlist control group. The 0.3 criterion is the citing authors’ decision, not a threshold stated by this review. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The small to moderate effect sizes between conditions at post-intervention and follow-up are in line with other (Web-based) caregiver interventions.

    “The small to moderate effect sizes between the conditions at post-intervention and follow-up are in line with other (Web-based) caregiver interventions [10, 38].”

    From Web-based self-help intervention for partners of cancer patients based on acceptance and commitment therapy and self-compassion training: a randomized controlled trial with automated versus personal feedback (2021) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Discussion reports small-to-medium effects in this meta-analysis of cancer-caregiver interventions, comparable to effects in other caregiver meta-analyses. It does not support the Web-based qualifier: Directions for Future Research says the authors found no published Web-based studies in their target population. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Northouse, L. L., Katapodi, M. C., Song, L., Zhang, L., & Mood, D. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-16
Volume
60
Issue
5
Pages
n/a-n/a
ISSN
0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2131433218
Cited by
857
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 46
FWCI
9.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA090739, R01CA090739)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Family Support in Illness
Keywords
family caregivers, cancer patients, caregiver interventions, caregiver burden, coping, self-efficacy, quality of life, psychoeducational intervention, skills training, therapeutic counseling, patient-caregiver dyads, intervention moderators
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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