Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40874830›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Open Online Courses for Informal Carers: Systematic Integrative Review.

Kalya Win Aung, Angela Kibia, Juliana Onwumere

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kalya Win AungDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom, 44 7386692555.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7519-055X
Angela KibiaDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom, 44 7386692555.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6978-6976
Juliana OnwumereDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, King's College London, Henry Wellcome Building, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom, 44 7386692555.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7119-7451

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Informal carers, people providing unpaid support to relatives or close others with an illness, disability, or advanced age-related care needs, are key stakeholders in health care systems. Carers have their own health and well-being challenges; however, their needs and care pathways are often overlooked by health care providers. Open online courses offer opportunities to address the information and support needs of large numbers of carers. However, our collective understanding of the design and outcomes of courses and learner experiences is limited. Objective: This systematic integrative review aimed to map the characteristics of open online courses for informal carers, explore learner experiences, and identify barriers and enablers to participation to inform the design of future courses. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we systematically searched 4 electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE) for papers published from inception to January 30, 2025. Included papers were peer-reviewed, in the English language, and reported on the development, delivery, or outcomes of open online courses for informal carers aged more than 16 years. Excluded papers had no carer focus or were conference abstracts. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Backward and forward citation searches were conducted. Due to study heterogeneity, data on paper methodology, course characteristics, and course evaluations were extracted and synthesized narratively. Quality assessments of quantitative papers and the quantitative components of mixed methods papers used the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool. Qualitative components within mixed methods papers were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) toolkit. Results: Searches identified 201 papers, of which 10 (6 quantitative and 4 mixed methods) met the inclusion criteria. No qualitative papers were identified. All included courses were massive open online courses. Sample sizes ranged from 3 to 17,591 participants, primarily targeting carers of older individuals (n=4). Completion rates ranged from 42% to 67% (n=5). Five papers reported improved carer knowledge and application of skills. Key enablers to learning included course accessibility and flexibility. Key barriers to learning included limited peer interaction, technical difficulties, time constraints, language challenges, and online privacy challenges. Most papers were of weak quality, except for 1 strong quantitative RCT. Conclusions: The evidence was limited by moderate-to-weak study quality, inconsistent measures, and exclusion of gray literature. Despite these limitations, findings suggest that open online courses may improve carers' knowledge and skills and enable accessible, flexible learning. However, barriers to learning, including limited learner-to-learner interaction within and external to the course, time constraints, and digital or language barriers, highlight the need for more inclusive and interactive course designs. Further high-quality research is needed to standardize outcomes.

Indexed as

CaregiversEducation, DistanceInternetHumanscaregiverscarersfamiliesmassive open online courseMOOConline learningopen online course

Identifiers

PMID40874830
PMCPMC12392690

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.