Evidence mapPaperPMID 41860835Full record

Trial reportPloS one2026

A randomised controlled feasibility study of the Carers-ID intervention to support the mental health of family carers of people with intellectual disabilities.

Rachel A Leonard, Maria Truesdale, Michael Brown, Lynne Marsh, Stuart Todd, Nathan Hughes, Trisha Forbes, Ashleen Crowe, Mark A Linden

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05737823 (Randomised Controlled Feasibility Study and Exploratory Trial of the Carers-ID Intervention), which is not on this 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.

NCT05737823 naunknown statusnot on this map

Randomised Controlled Feasibility Study and Exploratory Trial of the Carers-ID Intervention: Supporting Family Carers' Mental Health Following the COVID-19 Pandemic

TypeinterventionalSponsorQueen's University, BelfastRan2023 to 2025Enrolled120ConditionsFeasibilityArmsCarers-ID online support programme, Carers-ID online support programme - Wait-list control
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

9 authors.

Rachel A LeonardSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8753-4632
Maria TruesdaleSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Michael BrownSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Lynne MarshSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Stuart ToddSchool of Care Sciences, University of South Wales, Caerleon, Wales.
Nathan HughesDepartment of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Trisha ForbesSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2047-2956
Ashleen CroweSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Mark A LindenSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3832-4102

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntellectual disability (ID) refers to significant limitations in intellectual and adaptive functioning beginning in childhood. Globally, ID affects 1-3% of the population-over 200 million people. Family carers of individuals with ID experience high levels of stress, poor health, and reduced quality of life due to ongoing caregiving demands. These pressures intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, prompting the development of Carers-ID, an online intervention designed to support carers' mental health.

objectiveTo assess the feasibility of delivering the Carers-ID programme to family carers of people with ID.

methodsA parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate recruitment and retention rates, feasibility of data collection, and potential effect sizes. Carers were recruited via UK-based voluntary organisations and NHS learning disability teams and randomly assigned to either the Carers-ID intervention (n = 51) or waitlist control (n = 48). Randomisation was conducted by an independent third party. The intervention spanned two weeks with assessments at baseline, post-intervention, and three-month follow-up. Outcomes included measures of well-being, resilience, social connectedness, depression, anxiety, and stress. The trial followed CONSORT reporting guidelines.

resultsOf 150 carers screened, 99 met inclusion criteria, and 84 completed the baseline assessment (85%). Retention was 55% post-intervention and 41% at three-month follow-up. Adjusted mean differences between-groups at T2 (2 weeks from baseline) across the four measures were as follows: 3.42 (SE = 2.84, p = 0.23) for wellbeing, 12.20 (SE = 5.83, p = 0.04) for resilience, 5.09 (SE = 5.12, p = 0.32) for social connectedness, 0.98 (SE = 1.40, p = 0.49) for depression, 0.42 (SE = 1.26, p = 0.74) for stress, and 1.06 (SE = 1.32, p = 0.43) for anxiety.

conclusionFamily carers face time and resource pressures which may exclude them from clinical trials. Challenges in retaining carers highlight the need for flexible intervention formats. Despite retention issues, results suggest feasibility in delivering the Carers-ID intervention. Future effectiveness trials should address barriers to participation and tailor interventions for this underserved population. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05737823.

Indexed as

CaregiversIntellectual DisabilityMental HealthAdultAnxietyCOVID-19DepressionFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID41860835
PMCPMC13004343

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.