Evidence mapPaperPMID 41043842Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions to enhance the quality of life of informal caregivers of patients receiving home-based palliative care: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.

Benoite Umubyeyi, Emilie Allard, Johanna De Almeida Mello, Sophie Chrétien, Isabelle Vedel, Emmanuel Bagaragaza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Benoite UmubyeyiDépartement Recherche Enseignement Formation, Maison Médicale Jeanne Garnier, Paris, France bumubyeyi@jeannegarnier-paris.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4153-8742
Emilie AllardFaculté des Sciences Infirmières, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6490-3696
Johanna De Almeida MelloLUCAS - Center for Care Research and Consultancy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1262-318X
Sophie ChrétienDépartement Recherche Enseignement Formation, Maison Médicale Jeanne Garnier, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-7523-6933
Isabelle VedelFamily Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6873-1681
Emmanuel BagaragazaDépartement Recherche Enseignement Formation, Maison Médicale Jeanne Garnier, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2201-5487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInformal caregivers play a vital role in caring for individuals who choose to spend the end of their life at home. However, this caregiving role often imposes considerable physical, emotional, social and financial burdens that can negatively impact caregivers' quality of life. A comprehensive understanding of the breadth of interventions designed to support caregivers of individuals receiving home-based palliative and end-of-life care is essential, along with insights into how these interventions are perceived by those who have received them. The objective of this review is to synthesise existing evidence on the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions that support informal caregivers of patients receiving home-based palliative care in order to address the caregivers' needs and improve their quality of life. Additionally, this review aims to explore the acceptability and perceived benefits of these interventions from the perspectives of informal caregivers who have received them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Cairn.info, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). This review will include studies that focus on adult informal caregivers of adult patients with serious life-threatening illnesses receiving home-based palliative care. Interventional studies that employed quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods approaches will be considered. Quantitative studies will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Qualitative studies will encompass research that explores informal caregivers' experiences with the interventions, perceived benefits and barriers and enablers influencing intervention effectiveness. Mixed-methods studies using convergent, embedded or sequential designs will also be included.The search will include studies published in English or French, with no restrictions on the publication period. Study selection, critical appraisal and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers to ensure methodological rigour. This review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for mixed-methods systematic reviews, using a convergent segregated approach. Findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical review is not required for this study, as it is a literature review that does not involve the collection of primary data. The findings of this review will be disseminated to the scientific community through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Additionally, lay summaries will be prepared and shared with the general public and relevant stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO, registration number CRD420251006612.

Indexed as

CaregiversHome Care ServicesPalliative CareQuality of LifeHumansResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicTerminal CareCaregiversPALLIATIVE CAREQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID41043842
PMCPMC12496043

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.