Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

Background: Informal caregivers commonly experience mental health difficulties related to their caregiving role. e–Mental health interventions provide mental health support in a format that may be more accessible to informal caregivers. However, e–mental health interventions are seldom implemented in real-world practice.

Objective: This mixed methods systematic review aimed to examine factors associated with the effectiveness and implementation of e–mental health interventions for informal caregivers of adults with chronic diseases. To achieve this aim, two approaches were adopted: combinations of implementation and intervention characteristics sufficient for intervention effectiveness were explored using qualitative comparative analysis, and barriers to and facilitators of implementation of e–mental health interventions for informal caregivers were explored using thematic synthesis.

Methods: We identified relevant studies published from January 1, 2007, to July 6, 2022, by systematically searching 6 electronic databases and various secondary search strategies. Included studies reported on the effectiveness or implementation of e–mental health interventions for informal caregivers of adults with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, diabetes, heart disease, or stroke. Randomized controlled trials reporting on caregivers’ mental health outcomes were included in a crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis. We assessed randomized controlled trials for bias using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, and we assessed how pragmatic or explanatory their trial design was using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 tool. Studies of any design reporting on implementation were included in a thematic synthesis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation.

Results: Overall, 53 reports, representing 29 interventions, were included in the review. Most interventions (27/29, 93%) focused on informal cancer or dementia caregivers. In total, 14 reports were included in the qualitative comparative analysis, exploring conditions including the presence of peer or professional support and key persuasive design features. Low consistency and coverage prevented the determination of condition sets sufficient for intervention effectiveness. Overall, 44 reports were included in the thematic synthesis, and 152 barriers and facilitators were identified, with the majority related to the intervention and individual characteristic domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implementation barriers and facilitators in the inner setting (eg, organizational culture) and outer setting (eg, external policies and resources) domains were largely unexplored.

Conclusions: e–Mental health interventions for informal caregivers tend to be well-designed, with several barriers to and facilitators of implementation identified related to the intervention and individual user characteristics. Future work should focus on exploring the views of stakeholders involved in implementation to determine barriers to and facilitators of implementing e–mental health interventions for informal caregivers, focusing on inner and outer setting barriers and facilitators.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) CRD42020155727; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020155727