Elsevier

Journal of Affective Disorders

Volume 236, 15 August 2018, Pages 187-198
Journal of Affective Disorders

Review article
Psychological interventions for caregivers of people with bipolar disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.077Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Psychoeducation may reduce caregiver burden at post-treatment, but not follow-up.

  • Psychoeducation improves caregiver knowledge at post-treatment and at follow-up.

  • Clear conclusions could not be drawn about the impact on psychological symptoms.

  • Services could consider offering psychoeducation to caregivers.

  • More methodologically rigorous research is needed.

Abstract

Aims

Clinical guidelines recommend that psychological interventions be offered to caregivers of people with bipolar disorder. However, there is little clarity about the efficacy of such interventions. This review examined the efficacy of psychological interventions in improving caregiver-focused outcomes, including burden, psychological symptoms and knowledge.

Method

A systematic search for controlled trials was conducted using a combination of electronic database searches (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL), and hand searches. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were meta-analysed using Review Manager (RevMan).

Results

Nine studies met inclusion criteria. All meta-analyses compared psychoeducation to a control. At post-treatment there was a large effect of psychoeducation on burden (g = −0.8, 95% CI: −1.32, −0.27). However, there was high heterogeneity, confidence intervals were wide, and the effect was not maintained at follow-up. The apparent effect of psychoeducation on psychological symptoms was driven by a single outlying study. There was a very large effect on knowledge at post-treatment (g = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.39, 3.82) and follow-up (g = 2.41, 95% CI: 0.85, 3.98).

Limitations

There was considerable diversity in study methodology and quality. The number of included studies and sample sizes were small.

Conclusions

This review provides tentative meta-analytic evidence for the efficacy of psychoeducation in improving caregiver burden at post-treatment, and knowledge at post-treatment and follow-up. Services could consider offering psychoeducation as part of a multi-disciplinary package of care. However, more methodologically rigorous research is needed before clinical recommendations can be made with confidence.

Introduction

Caregivers of people with bipolar disorder can experience high levels of burden and significant psychological distress (Steele et al., 2010, van der Voort et al., 2007). The majority report at least a moderate level of burden, with around 90% reporting high subjective burden in relation to their relative's symptoms (Perlick et al., 1999, Perlick et al., 2007a). Caregiving is associated with increased risk of mental health problems, with up to 46% experiencing anxiety and depression (Steele et al., 2010). While clinical guidelines emphasise improving the experience of caregivers, there is a lack of clarity about the most effective ways to provide psychological support (NICE, 2014; National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health [NCCMH], 2014a).

Caregiver burden is a multidimensional concept, and there is considerable diversity in definition and operationalisation (Vella and Pai, 2012). Some definitions are based on a concept of global burden, defined as the emotional, social and financial stresses that caregiving imposes on the caregiver (Hoenig and Hamilton, 1967). Others distinguish between objective burden, which comprises the symptoms and behaviour of the patient and their consequences such as disruption of social, financial and occupational functioning; and subjective burden which refers to the psychological consequences of caregiving, such as distress and burnout (Cuijpers and Stam, 2000, Schene, 1990).

Caregiving in bipolar disorder has been conceptualised within a ‘stress-appraisal-coping’ model (Chakrabarti and Gill, 2002, van der Voort et al., 2007). The level of burden and psychological symptoms experienced by caregivers may be linked to the severity of the patient's symptoms and the caregiver's level of social support (Perlick et al., 1999, Perlick et al., 2007a, Perlick et al., 2007b). However, caregiver appraisals may moderate the relationship between patient symptom severity and caregiver burden or psychological symptoms (Perlick et al., 1999, Steele et al., 2010). This may in part be due to how appraisals influence coping style (Chakrabarti and Gill, 2002, Perlick et al., 2007b). Lack of illness awareness (defined as understanding that symptoms are attributable to a mental illness requiring treatment) is associated with more frequent use of maladaptive coping strategies such as avoidance, and less frequent use of adaptive strategies such as positive communication (Chakrabarti and Gill, 2002, Perlick et al., 2008). Appraisals of controllability are also linked to ‘expressed emotion’, defined as the expression of critical attitudes, hostility or emotional over-involvement (Leff and Vaughn, 1984, Wendel et al., 2000). This in turn is associated with negative patient outcomes such as increased relapse and symptom severity (Hooley, 2007, Kim and Miklowitz, 2004). However, research is predominantly cross-sectional, and the direction of causality between caregiver responses and illness severity is unclear (Hooley, 2007).

The ‘stress-appraisal-coping’ model implies the potential for interventions to reduce caregiver burden and psychological symptoms, through modification of appraisals and coping strategies and increasing social support. In accordance with this, NICE guidelines for bipolar disorder recommend psychological interventions to improve the experience of caregiving, including group psychoeducation and support groups (NICE, 2014). Support groups involve caregivers providing mutual support, and may be led by a peer or professional who facilitates interaction between group members. Psychoeducation may predominantly provide information about the nature, treatment and management of bipolar disorder, or can include more complex components such as increasing coping strategies, and teaching problem-solving and communication skills. The NICE guidelines do not explicitly recommend a particular type of psychological intervention, as the evidence that the recommendations are based on is described as being of low to moderate quality (NCCMH, 2014b). It is also important to note that the guidelines are based primarily on studies involving caregivers of people with psychosis and schizophrenia (NCCMH 2014a, NCCMH 2014b).

There is some variation in how psychoeducational interventions are categorised in the literature (Oud et al., 2016; Reinares et al., 2016). However, a broad distinction can be made between interventions involving caregivers alone, such as group psychoeducation, and interventions involving caregivers and patients. Interventions involving caregivers and the index patient can be further sub-divided into those delivered in a group format, such as multi-family group psychoeducation and those delivered to individual families or dyads, such as family-focused therapy (Miklowitz and Goldstein, 1997). This is a modification of the Falloon model of behavioural family therapy for schizophrenia (Falloon et al., 1984, Miklowitz and Goldstein, 1997). The primary aims are the reduction of expressed emotion and modification of associated appraisals, in order to reduce relapse (Miklowitz and Chung, 2016). However, there is a substantial overlap in the content of psychoeducational interventions, with many involving communication skills and problem-solving skills training, as well as basic psychoeducation (Reinares et al., 2016).

Despite the fact that psychological interventions often aim to improve caregiver outcomes through promoting coping strategies (Reinares et al., 2016), these are often not reported in reviews of the literature (e.g. Oud et al., 2016). To date there have been no reviews exclusively evaluating the impact of psychological interventions aiming to improve the experience of caregiving in bipolar disorder. In a wider review of family interventions for bipolar disorder, Reinares et al., (2016) reported that five trials of psychoeducation showed positive effects on caregiver knowledge, burden, and psychological symptoms, but did not meta-analyse study effects. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for caregivers of those with severe mental illness found some evidence to support the efficacy of psychoeducation and support groups in improving the experience of caregiving (primarily operationalised within individual studies as burden) and reducing psychological symptoms (Yesufu-Udechuku et al., 2015). However, the review only evaluated interventions provided to caregivers alone, and was based predominantly on interventions for caregivers of people with psychosis. There were insufficient numbers of studies to meta-analyse findings for bipolar disorder.

The aim of the current review and meta-analysis is to critically evaluate and synthesise the impact of psychological interventions aiming to improve the experience of caregiving in bipolar disorder. The experience of caregiving is defined broadly as encompassing any carer-focused outcome, including burden, psychological symptoms or knowledge of bipolar disorder. This is the first review to focus exclusively on outcomes for caregivers of patients with bipolar disorder, and to use meta-analytic methods to synthesise study findings. Although there have been recent reviews in this area, new trials have been published since this time, which enable the use of meta-analytic methods. In contrast to the most recent meta-analysis of caregiving (Yesufu-Udechuku et al., 2015), interventions involving caregivers alone and caregivers with the index patient will be included in the meta-analysis, thus increasing completeness and transparency of findings. In line with the literature on caregiving in bipolar disorder, the primary outcome variable will be caregiver burden. However, other relevant carer-focused outcomes, including psychological symptoms and knowledge of bipolar disorder, will also be synthesised. No reviews to date have evaluated the impact of psychological interventions on caregiver knowledge. Given that improving knowledge of bipolar disorder is a primary aim of psychoeducational interventions, and there has been found to be a relationship between illness awareness and coping style (Chakrabarti and Gill, 2002), this seems a significant gap in the literature. A further aim of the review is to assess the quality of the studies included in order to highlight possible areas for further research.

In summary, the review will address whether psychological interventions for caregivers are effective in:

  • 1.

    reducing burden.

  • 2.

    Improving other caregiver-focused outcomes, including psychological symptoms and knowledge of bipolar disorder.

Section snippets

Inclusion criteria

Studies were selected based on the PICOS framework (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006):

  • (1)

    Population. Informal caregivers of adults with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Caregivers included relatives, spouses, partners, friends or neighbours. Caregivers could be living with the person with bipolar or not. Where the study included caregivers or index patients under the age of 18, over 75% of caregivers and patients had to be over the age of 18. Studies where the population had significant comorbidities,

Study selection

Fig. 1 shows the number of studies identified, examined and excluded at each stage. The combined electronic searches yielded 985 references; 318 duplicates were removed. A total of 667 references were screened and 653 excluded based on title and abstract. The most common reasons for exclusion were that bipolar disorder was not the main focus of the study, the study did not evaluate an intervention, or the study evaluated a drug treatment. Many studies were excluded based on multiple reasons.

Author's contributions

The first author (Ella Baruch) designed and wrote the review protocol, carried out the systematic search, screened the studies, evaluated them for risk of bias, analysed the data, and wrote the manuscript. The second author (Chris Barker) screened a sample of the studies for inclusion and co-rated studies for risk of bias. The second and third authors (Chris Barker and Nancy Pistrang) both contributed substantially to the design of the study, supervised the data collection and analysis, and

Funding

Funding: The research was conducted as part of Ella Baruch's doctorate in clinical psychology, completed at University College London. Financial support was provided by the university.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Acknowledgement

We thank Amanda Williams who provided consultation on carrying out the meta-analysis.

References (47)

  • M. Borenstein et al.

    Introduction to Meta-Analysis

    (2009)
  • S. Chakrabarti et al.

    Coping and its correlates among caregivers of patients with bipolar disorder: a preliminary study

    Bipolar Disord.

    (2002)
  • J. Clarkin et al.

    A randomized clinical trial of inpatient family intervention V. Results for affective disorders

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (1990)
  • M. Claxton et al.

    Do family interventions improve outcome in early psychosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Front. Psychiatry

    (2017)
  • J. Cohen

    Statistical Power Analysis For the Behavioural Sciences

    (1988)
  • P. Cuijpers et al.

    Burnout among relatives of psychiatric patients attending psychoeducational support groups

    Psychiatr. Serv.

    (2000)
  • M.S. de Souza et al.

    Six-session caregiver psychoeducation on bipolar disorder: does it bring benefits to caregivers?

    Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry

    (2016)
  • I.R. Falloon et al.

    Family Care of schizophrenia: A problem-Solving Approach to the Treatment of Mental Illness

    (1984)
  • A.P. Field et al.

    How to do a meta-analysis

    Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol.

    (2010)
  • A. Fiorillo et al.

    Efficacy of psychoeducational family intervention for bipolar I disorder: a controlled, multicentric, real-world study

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2015)
  • Á. Frías et al.

    Intervenciones psicosociales en el tratamiento de los jóvenes diagnosticados o con alto riesgo para el trastorno bipolar pediátrico: una revisión de la literatura

    Rev. Psiquiatr. Salud Ment.

    (2015)
  • J Greenhalgh et al.

    What tools do i use to quality assess my studies?

  • L.V. Hedges

    Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators

    J Educ. Behav. Stat.

    (1981)
  • J.P. Higgins et al.

    Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

    Br. Med. J.

    (2003)
  • J.P.T. Higgins et al.

    Cochrane Handbook for Systematic a. Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0

    (2011)
  • J. Hoenig et al.

    The burden on the household in an extramural psychiatric service

  • J.M. Hooley

    Expressed emotion and relapse of psychopathology

    Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.

    (2007)
  • A. Hubbard et al.

    Brief group psychoeducation for caregivers of individuals with bipolar disorder: a randomized controlled trial

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2016)
  • J.E. Hunter et al.

    Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge

    Int. J. Sel. Assess.

    (2000)
  • L. Justo et al.

    Family interventions for bipolar disorder

    Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.

    (2007)
  • E.Y. Kim et al.

    Expressed emotion as a predictor of outcome among bipolar patients undergoing family therapy

    J. Affect. Disord.

    (2004)
  • D. Kolostoumpis et al.

    Effectiveness of relatives’ psychoeducation on family outcomes in bipolar disorder

    Int. J. Ment. Health.

    (2015)
  • J. Leff et al.

    Expressed Emotion in families: Its significance For Mental Illness

    (1984)
  • Cited by (13)

    • Understanding the role of m-health to improve well-being in spouses of patients with bipolar disorder

      2019, Journal of Affective Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      These studies are very encouraging and show that (a) the distress and burden in caregivers can be significantly reduced, and (b) this reduction positively affects the course of illness in patients who were not part of the intervention themselves. While these and other family interventions make a significant difference in outcomes (Baruch et al., 2018), they are time-consuming, require highly trained clinicians, and are not easily available in the community. While technology and online services cannot replace the direct relationship with a mental health professional, tools which provide caregivers with readily available feedback and information in real-time could be of tremendous importance to decrease burden and increase well-being in caregivers, both as a stand-alone and adjunct intervention to standard care.

    • Identifying effective interventions for promoting parent engagement and family reunification for children in out-of-home care: A series of meta-analyses

      2019, Child Abuse and Neglect
      Citation Excerpt :

      Noteworthy, none of these studies were of a low-quality design (i.e. lack of a pre-/post-tests design, no comparison group). Hence, given this limited number of studies is sufficiently large enough to conduct a meta-analysis (Baruch, Pistrang, & Barker, 2018; Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2010), we used this statistical method to investigate their combined effect sizes on parental engagement and family reunification with parents and their children in residential care and other type of temporary placements. Findings of the current study could give rise to new research questions and (tentatively) orient child protective services in critical need of effective intervention strategies for this population.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text