Supporting families to protect child health: Parenting quality and household needs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Supportive parenting is critical for promoting healthy child development in the face of stressors, such as those occurring during COVID-19. Here, we address a knowledge gap regarding specific household risk factors associated with parenting quality during the pandemic and incorporate first-person accounts of family challenges and needs. METHODS: Mixed methods were applied to data collected between April 14th - 28th, 2020 from the "Parenting During the Pandemic" survey. Participants included 656 primary caregivers (e.g., mothers, fathers, foster parents) of least one child age 1.5-8 years of which 555 (84.6%) responded to at least one parenting questionnaire. Parenting quality was assessed across stressful, negative, and positive parenting dimensions. Household risk was examined across pandemic- linked (e.g., caregiver depression, unmet childcare needs) and stable factors (i.e., annual income, mental illness history). Significant correlates were examined with regressions in Mplus. Thematic analysis identified caregiver challenges and unmet needs from open-ended questions. FINDINGS: Caregiver depression, higher child parity, unmet childcare needs, and relationship distress predicted lower-quality parenting. Caregiver depression was the most significant predictor across every parenting dimension, with analyses indicating medium effect sizes, ds = .39 - .73. Qualitative findings highlighted severe strains on parent capacities including managing psychological distress, limited social supports, and too much unstructured time. INTERPRETATIONS: Lower quality parenting during COVID-19 is associated with multiple household and pandemic risk factors, with caregiver depression consistently linked to parent- child relationship disruptions. Focused efforts are needed to address caregiver mental health to protect child health as part of the pandemic response.

CE: Providing Care for Caregivers During COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Care for the Caregiver is a peer-to-peer program that provides support and guidance to clinicians who have experienced an unexpected and emotionally distressing event. Its development was preceded by communication and resolution programs that were endorsed by the Joint Commission in 2001, subsequently introduced at several U.S. medical centers, and in 2009 were incorporated within demonstration projects funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. In August 2014, the authors introduced the Care for the Caregiver program across the MedStar Health System, which includes seven hospitals in Maryland and three in the District of Columbia. Here, they describe how the program was initially conceived and structured-and how it evolved in response to the current pandemic.

Quality of Life of Informal Caregivers behind the Scene of the COVID-19 Epidemic in Serbia.

Background and objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented reliance on informal caregivers as one of the pillars of healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of life of informal caregivers during the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among informal caregivers during the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia. Physical and mental quality of life was measured by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Additional data included sociodemographic characteristics, caregiver and care recipient characteristics, and COVID-19 related concerns. The qualitative component was performed using focus groups and individual in-depth interviews. Results: Out of 112 informal caregivers enrolled, most were female (80%), and the average age was 51.1 ± 12.3 years. The majority was delivering care to one person, who was a family member, on a daily basis (86.4%, 92%, and 91.1%, respectively). In multiple regression models, significant predictors of caregivers' physical health were delivering care to a family member and a higher level of care complexity, while significant predictors of caregivers' mental health were a higher level of care complexity and increased concerns about self-health and the health of the person being cared for due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Conclusions: Informal caregivers are experiencing negative physical and mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 epidemic in Serbia.

Remotely delivered information, training and support for informal caregivers of people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia. Psychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor access to transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy. Our primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants). We downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty. In the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53). In the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information alone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Remotely delivered interventions including support, training or both, with or without information, may slightly reduce caregiver burden and improve caregiver depressive symptoms when compared with provision of information alone, but not when compared with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control. They seem to make little or no difference to health-related quality of life. Caregivers receiving training or support were more likely than those receiving information alone to drop out of the studies, which might limit applicability. The efficacy of these interventions may depend on the nature and availability of usual services in the study settings.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchas personas con demencia son atendidas en casa por cuidadores informales no remunerados, generalmente miembros de la familia. Los cuidadores pueden sufrir una serie de efectos perjudiciales físicos, emocionales, económicos y sociales, que a menudo se describen colectivamente como una carga para el cuidador. El grado de carga que se experimenta está asociado con las características del cuidador, como el género, y con las características de la persona con demencia, como la etapa de la demencia, y la presencia de problemas de comportamiento o trastornos neuropsiquiátricos. Es un fuerte predictor del ingreso en una residencia para personas con demencia. Las intervenciones psicoeducativas pueden prevenir o reducir la carga del cuidador. En general, tienen como objetivo mejorar los conocimientos de los cuidadores sobre la enfermedad y su cuidado; aumentar el sentido de competencia de los cuidadores y su capacidad para afrontar situaciones difíciles; aliviar los sentimientos de aislamiento y permitir que los cuidadores atiendan sus propias necesidades emocionales y físicas. Estas intervenciones son heterogéneas y varían en su marco teórico, sus componentes y sus formatos de administración. Las intervenciones que se realizan a distancia, utilizando material impreso, el teléfono o las tecnologías de vídeo, pueden ser particularmente adecuadas para los cuidadores que tienen dificultades para acceder a los servicios de forma presencial debido a sus propios problemas de salud, al escaso acceso al transporte o a la falta de un cuidado alternativo. Durante la pandemia de covid­19, las medidas de contención en muchos países exigían que las personas estuvieran aisladas en sus hogares, incluidas las personas con demencia y sus familiares cuidadores. En tales circunstancias, no hay alternativa a la realización de intervenciones a distancia. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia y la aceptabilidad de las intervenciones realizadas a distancia con el fin de reducir la carga y mejorar el estado de ánimo y la calidad de vida de los cuidadores informales de personas con demencia. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 10 de abril de 2020 se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Demencia y trastornos cognitivos (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE, Embase y otras cuatro bases de datos, así como en dos registros internacionales de ensayos. También se examinaron las bibliografías de documentos de revisión pertinentes y de ensayos publicados. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Sólo se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que evaluaron la administración a distancia de intervenciones estructuradas para los cuidadores informales que atendían a personas con demencia que vivían en el domicilio. Los cuidadores debían ser adultos no remunerados (parientes o miembros de la comunidad de la persona). Las intervenciones se podían realizar utilizando materiales impresos, el teléfono, la internet o una mezcla de estos, pero no podían implicar un contacto presencial con profesionales. Los componentes de la intervención se clasificaron como información, formación o apoyo. Las intervenciones de información incluyeron dos elementos clave: i) proporcionaron información estandarizada, y ii) el cuidador desempeñaba un papel pasivo. Las intervenciones de apoyo promovieron la interacción con otras personas (profesionales o iguales). Las intervenciones de formación entrenaron a los cuidadores en habilidades prácticas para proporcionar la atención. Se excluyeron las intervenciones que consistieron principalmente en psicoterapia individual. Los desenlaces principales fueron la carga del cuidador, el estado de ánimo, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y el abandono por cualquier motivo. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron los conocimientos y aptitudes de los cuidadores, la utilización de los recursos de atención sanitaria y social, el ingreso de la persona con demencia en una institución y la calidad de vida de la persona con demencia. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la selección de los estudios, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos. Se utilizó la Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) para describir las intervenciones. Los metanálisis se realizaron mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios para obtener las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto. Se utilizaron los métodos GRADE para describir el grado de certeza sobre las estimaciones del efecto. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 26 estudios (2367 participantes). Se compararon (1) las intervenciones que incluyeron formación, apoyo o ambos, con o sin información (intervenciones experimentales) con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención (12 estudios, 944 participantes); y (2) las mismas intervenciones experimentales con el suministro de información solamente (14 estudios, 1423 participantes). La calidad de la evidencia se redujo por las limitaciones de los estudios y, en el caso de algunos desenlaces, por la falta de consistencia entre los estudios. Hubo un riesgo frecuente de sesgo debido a la autocalificación de los desenlaces subjetivos por parte de participantes que no estaban cegados a la intervención. Los métodos de asignación al azar no siempre se informaron bien y hubo un posible sesgo de desgaste en algunos estudios. Por lo tanto, toda la evidencia fue de certeza moderada o baja. En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales probablemente tienen poco o ningún efecto sobre la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 597 participantes; diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: ­0,35 a 0,23); los síntomas depresivos (ocho estudios, 638 participantes; DME ­0,05; IC del 95%: ­0,22 a 0,12) o la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (dos estudios, 311 participantes; DME 0,10; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a 0,32). Las intervenciones experimentales probablemente dan lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el abandono por cualquier motivo (ocho estudios, 661 participantes; razón de riesgos [RR] 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,87 a 1,53). En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con una condición control de información sola, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales pueden dar lugar a una leve reducción de la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 650 participantes; DME ­0,24; IC del 95%: ­0,51 a 0,04); probablemente dan lugar a una leve mejoría de los síntomas depresivos (11 estudios, 1100 participantes; DME ­0,25; IC del 95%: ­0,43 a ­0,06); podrían dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud de los cuidadores (dos estudios, 257 participantes; DME ­0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,28 a 0,21); y probablemente dé lugar a un aumento de los abandonos por cualquier motivo (12 estudios, 1266 participantes; RR 1,51; IC del 95%: 1,04 a 2,20). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Las intervenciones realizadas a distancia, como el apoyo, la formación o ambas, con o sin información, podrían reducir ligeramente la carga del cuidador y mejorar los síntomas depresivos del cuidador en comparación con el suministro de información únicamente, pero no en comparación con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención. Parecen dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Los cuidadores que recibieron formación o apoyo tuvieron más probabilidades de abandonar los estudios que los que recibieron sólo información, lo que podría limitar la aplicabilidad. La eficacia de esas intervenciones puede depender de la naturaleza y la disponibilidad de los servicios habituales en los ámbitos de estudio.