TY - JOUR
T1 - Interventions to improve sleep in caregivers
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Cooper, Charlotte J.
AU - Owen, Patrick J.
AU - Sprajcer, Madeline
AU - Crowther, Meagan E.
AU - Craige, Emma A.
AU - Ferguson, Sally A.
AU - Gupta, Charlotte C.
AU - Gibson, Rosemary
AU - Vincent, Grace E.
N1 - Funding Information:
This review was supported by internal funding from Central Queensland University secured by Grace Vincent (Enrich Scholarship Scheme). Meagan Crowther is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2022/8
Y1 - 2022/8
N2 - Unpaid caregivers often experience sleep impairments as an unintended consequence of providing care. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of interventions to improve sleep in unpaid caregivers. Six databases were searched from journal inception to 7-Sep-2021 to identify randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated mean differences (MD) at end-of-intervention. Twenty-one studies were identified (15 eligible for meta-analysis). Compared to control, interventions improved sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; 12 studies, 1153 participants, MD = −1.66, 95% CI [−2.91, −0.41], p = 0.009, I2 = 90.51%, GRADE = low), and total sleep time (hours; two studies, 122 participants, MD = 0.45, 95% CI [0.42, 0.48], p = 0.003, I2 = 0.00%, GRADE = low), but not sleeping problems (sleep item on Symptom Distress Scale of the Omega Screening Questionnaire; two studies, 529 participants, MD = −0.06, 95% CI [−0.69, 0.58], p = 0.458, I2 = 0.01%, GRADE = low). There is low quality evidence that interventions improve sleep quality in unpaid caregivers compared to control. Limitations include the lack of evidence for specific intervention modes and limited use of objective sleep measures. Future research should explore potential effect modifiers such as care recipient condition (CRD42021278670).
AB - Unpaid caregivers often experience sleep impairments as an unintended consequence of providing care. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of interventions to improve sleep in unpaid caregivers. Six databases were searched from journal inception to 7-Sep-2021 to identify randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated mean differences (MD) at end-of-intervention. Twenty-one studies were identified (15 eligible for meta-analysis). Compared to control, interventions improved sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; 12 studies, 1153 participants, MD = −1.66, 95% CI [−2.91, −0.41], p = 0.009, I2 = 90.51%, GRADE = low), and total sleep time (hours; two studies, 122 participants, MD = 0.45, 95% CI [0.42, 0.48], p = 0.003, I2 = 0.00%, GRADE = low), but not sleeping problems (sleep item on Symptom Distress Scale of the Omega Screening Questionnaire; two studies, 529 participants, MD = −0.06, 95% CI [−0.69, 0.58], p = 0.458, I2 = 0.01%, GRADE = low). There is low quality evidence that interventions improve sleep quality in unpaid caregivers compared to control. Limitations include the lack of evidence for specific intervention modes and limited use of objective sleep measures. Future research should explore potential effect modifiers such as care recipient condition (CRD42021278670).
KW - Interventions
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Sleep
KW - Systematic review
KW - Unpaid caregivers
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132935185&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101658
DO - 10.1016/j.smrv.2022.101658
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 35777346
AN - SCOPUS:85132935185
SN - 1087-0792
VL - 64
JO - Sleep Medicine Reviews
JF - Sleep Medicine Reviews
M1 - 101658
ER -