Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Shifting demographics and shortages of care staff place increasing pressure on healthcare systems and highlight the need for sustainable informal care. Although informal care alleviates pressure on healthcare systems, it comes with significant burden, primarily for caregivers. Minimizing burden through adequate support systems is essential. This review maps the evidence landscape on (a) educational, (b) social/emotional, (c) practical, (d) financial, and (e) legal support interventions for informal caregivers.

Methods:

A scoping review of literature published between 2019 and 2025 and indexed in medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Screening was conducted in duplicate. Data extraction was conducted using elicit and quality checked manually. Synthesis followed a 4-step, iterative, and thematic approach.

Results:

About 2665 articles were screened and 67 included. The most common support types were educational (n = 63) and social or emotional (n = 45), often combined. Educational support improved caregivers’ knowledge, skills, preparedness, and self-efficacy, often linked to improved burden and quality of life. Social and emotional support was linked to lower isolation, anxiety, and depression while enhancing well-being, and emotional connections. Overall, studies reported improved caregiver burden, self-efficacy, preparedness, quality of life, as well as mental and physical health. Financial and legal interventions were marginally addressed. We identified (1) caregiver-related, (2) intervention-related, and (3) system-level barriers and facilitators.

Conclusions:

The literature primarily focuses on educational and social-emotional interventions with reported benefits across caregiver outcomes, including caregiver burden and overall well-being. Financial and legal support remain inadequately addressed despite broader evidence that financial burden is a key driver of caregiver burden.

Keywords

informal caregivers caregiver support health services for the aged social support review long-term care

Background

Globally, shifting demographics and a growing prevalence of multi-morbid patients are placing increasing pressure on public health and healthcare systems.¹ At the same time, persistent shortages of qualified care staff further exacerbate these challenges and highlight the need for additional support structures, such as stronger informal care networks.¹ Informal care forms the backbone of global long-term care (LTC) and broadly refers to support provided to a relative, friend, or acquaintance without a formal contractual agreement.² A 2023 OECD report with data across 25 countries found that 1 in 8 individuals aged 50 and above receive informal care, while 1 in 12 reported providing informal care on a daily basis.³ In the U.S alone, it is estimated that about 100 million adults provided informal care for a dependent relative, a 40 million increase from 2015.⁴ Most informal care takes place at home, where caregivers deliver a wide range of care tasks as well as support with activities of daily living.⁵

Although informal care alleviates pressure on healthcare systems, it comes with financial, physical, and mental health burden, primarily for caregivers.⁶ Intense provision of informal care is associated with anxiety, depression, social isolation, reduction or loss of employment, early retirement, and reduced quality of life.^3,7-9 Caregiver burden is shaped not only by the intensity and duration of care and the patient’s cognitive and functional state, but also by contextual factors such as social support networks, access to information, and societal embedding, which can significantly influence carers’ ability to better cope with these challenges.^9,10 Caregivers often report the need for more professional/clinical guidance, better communication, as well as financial and other resources to help them navigate the complexity of daily care and healthcare systems.^8,11,12 Addressing these needs through external support systems is more urgent than ever. Equally crucial is improving our understanding of how different support measures affect informal care, including patients and caregivers.

Externally provided informal care support refers to interventions, resources, and services provided by actors outside the immediate informal care context (e.g., NGOs, private agencies, public institutions, healthcare professionals) to assist informal caregivers and improve informal care. Support can be educational, such as training and skill development programs; social and emotional such as peer-support interventions; practical, such as assistance with daily care tasks; financial, such as payments, subsidies, and other economic benefits; as well as legal, such as legal assistance around rights and insurance issues. Understanding how different types of support are implemented and affect informal caregivers and their patients is key to fostering a more efficient, sustainable, and less burdensome informal care ecosystem. Therefore, this scoping review provides an up-to-date synthesis of the scientific literature on externally provided informal care support. We have focused on physical, educational, social/emotional, financial, and legal support.

Aims

Our scoping review aims to map the evidence landscape on supported informal care to provide a holistic understanding of how different support interventions are currently addressed in the scientific literature. Additionally, it aims to provide a broad understanding of how support interventions are implemented, what barriers and facilitators they face and how they impact informal caregiving. Overall, we aim to inform best practices, further research, shape policy discussions, and ultimately contribute to a more equitable and sustainable caregiving system.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experiments, as well as cohort-, case-control-, and qualitative studies.

Scoping reviews are particularly suited to examine and map the breadth, scope, and nature of literature, especially if large and heterogenous.^13,14 In contrast to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, scoping reviews are less focused on assessing intervention effectiveness and study quality and more focused on the iterative mapping and summarizing of findings and research gaps.^13,14 Our methodology was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, as well as Levac, Colquhoun, and O’Brien’s conceptual extensions, emphasizing a systematic and thorough study selection, an iterative yet transparent data charting, as well as thematic synthesis and reporting ^13,14 A protocol was registered prospectively.¹⁵

Search Strategy, Selection Criteria, and Screening

A search strategy was designed and tailored to 3 electronic databases: Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We used multiple term variations (and synonyms) of the following search terms: informal care, family care, physical support, education, training, emotional support, social support, community support, peer support, financial assistance, and legal counseling. Our full search strategy (Medline) is provided in Supplemental File 1. All eligibility criteria are provided in Textbox 1. Interventions addressing purely digital support were excluded as we addressed those in a separate scoping review.

Textbox 1.

Inclusion criteria.

1. Addresses informal care and includes informal caregivers2. Addresses one (or more) of the following external support types for informal caregivers: (a) educational, (b) social/emotional, (c) practical, (d) financial, and (e) legal.3. Follows qualitative, observational, experimental (RCT) or quasi-experimental methods4. Is published between 2019 and 20255. Is written in English

Screening was conducted in duplicate across 2 stages. First, 2 reviewers (EM, AB) screened titles and abstracts in duplicate. Second, all potentially eligible studies were screened by both reviewers in full text. Those studies not meeting all the above criteria (Textbox 1) were excluded. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer (VN). All screening stages were conducted in Rayyan.¹⁶

Data Extraction

Data extraction was conducted with Elicit based on a pre-defined data extraction sheet, developed by the study team.¹⁷ For each data extraction item, we drafted a detailed prompt which was entered into Elicits automatic data extraction tool (https://elicit.com/). Prompts were carefully formulated to extract data accurately and keep redundancies low. They were initially tested in a sample of 10 studies and then corrected and adjusted. This process was conducted iteratively until the accuracy and consistency of extracted data was satisfactory. Extractions were manually quality-checked by 1 reviewer (AB). The data extraction sheet and corresponding Elicit prompts are provided Supplemental File 2.

Data Synthesis and Reporting

We synthesized data following a 4-step qualitative and iterative thematic approach, conducted by 1 reviewer (VN) and quality-checked by a second reviewer (EM).¹⁴ First, we familiarized ourselves with the data and generated initial themes. Second, we mapped and clustered themes, generating conceptual maps that provided an overall picture of our findings. Third, outlier findings were noted and highlighted separately. Fourth, findings were synthesized and reported. Our reporting was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement.¹⁸

Results

We identified and screened the titles and abstracts of 2665 articles. We excluded 2469 studies and screened 196 in full text. Finally, 67 studies fulfilled all eligibility criteria and were included in our analysis. Informal care was primarily provided at home (n = 48, 72%), followed by care in a clinical/institutional setting (n = 19, 28%; e.g., outpatient clinics, care homes) and community-based care settings. The PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1) shows all screening stages in detail.

Figure 1.

Prisma flow chart.¹⁸

Scope and Aims of Literature

The number of publications on support interventions for informal caregivers has been gradually increasing over the last 6 years. We identified 3 eligible studies in 2019, six in 2020, 12 in 2021, 14 in 2022 and 2023, 16 in 2024, and 2 in early 2025. Most studies were conducted in Asia (n = 29, 43%), followed by North and Central America (n = 17, 25%), Europe (n = 14, 21%), Oceania (n = 3, 5%), Africa (n = 2, 3%), and South America (n = 2, 3%). Most identified studies were RCTs (n = 25, 37%), followed by quasi-experimental methodologies (n = 23, 34%), mixed method designs (n = 14, 21%), and then qualitative (n = 3, 5%) and observational methodologies (n = 2, 3%). Most studies were primarily targeted toward informal caregivers (n = 44, 65%), followed by studies including caregiver and patient participants (n = 20, 30%) and studies primarily focusing on patients receiving informal care (n = 3, 5%).

Most of the studies aimed to assess the effects of external support on caregiver skills, such as communication and interaction skills, as well as their overall self-efficacy to provide informal care (n = 22, 33%), followed by studies that specifically and directly targeted a reduction in caregiver burden (n = 20, 30%). A significant (n = 14, 21%) proportion of literature looked at feasibility, acceptability and cultural relevance of various support types for informal caregivers. Eleven studies (16%) looked at the effects of support on the mental health of caregivers (e.g., stress, anxiety, depression), followed by studies that targeted overall quality of life and well-being (n = 10, 15%). Five studies (8%) aimed at improving caregiver lifestyles (e.g., increase in physical activity and other healthy choices) and providing financial stability respectively. Finally, 1 study (2%) assessed caregiver willingness to pay for support that reduces burden, and 1 study (2%) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of caregiver support. Support was delivered for a duration from 2 weeks up to 13 months, with 17 studies (25%) ranging between 2 and 5 months and 16 (24%) studies going beyond 5 months.

Participant Characteristics and Care Context

Most informal caregivers were spouses/partners (n = 43, 64%) or first-degree relatives (n = 30, 45%) of the patients they were caring for, followed by second degree relatives (n = 6, 9%). The focus of most studies was on middle-aged caregivers (n = 32, 48%), followed by older (n = 12, 18%) and mostly younger age groups (n = 4, 6%). In most studies, caregivers were predominantly female (n = 40, 60%), followed by balanced samples (n = 10, 15%) and 2 studies (3%) with mostly male caregivers. The employment status of caregivers was not widely reported. Among those studies (n = 51) reporting employment (n = 29, 52%), most included relatively balanced samples of both employed and unemployed caregivers (n = 16, 28%), followed mostly by unemployed (n = 6, 11%) and mostly by employed (n = 5, 9%) samples. Care was most often provided for patients with mental/cognitive conditions (n = 26, 39%) such as dementia and Alzheimer, followed by multiple chronic conditions (n = 13, 19%), cancer (n = 5, 7%), neuromuscular conditions (n = 5, 7%), cardiovascular diseases (n = 5, 7%), pulmonary conditions (n = 4, 6%), obesity (n = 3, 5%), chronic kidney disease (n = 3, 5%), and other physical disabilities (n = 3, 5%).

Types of Caregiver Support

The most common caregiver support types were educational support (n = 63, 94%) and social and emotional support (n = 45, 67%), in most studies combined. Practical support was mentioned in 12 studies (18%) and financial support in 8 studies (12%). Legal assistance was marginally mentioned in 1 study (2%). Table 1 provides all support delivery methods. Supplemental File 3 provides all included studies categorized by support types.

Table 1.

Caregiver Support Types and Delivery Methods.

Support type (number of studies addressing support type and % of total)	Category	Delivery method(s)
Educational (n = 63, 94%)	In-person training and skill-building	Face-to-face training, group (skills) training, home-based training in specific caregiving areas (e.g., palliative care), practical demonstrations, positive behavior support education, behavioral induction
	Digital and remote learning	Online training (e.g., webinars), videos, manuals, printed resources
	Interactive approaches	Feedback-based training, interactive discussions, theoretical and practical sessions
	Facilitator-led models	Care-manager-led or nurse-led educational sessions, psychoeducation, lecture-based training
Social Emotional (n = 45, 67%)	Therapeutic interventions	Group therapy, individual counseling, cognitive restructuring techniques, mindfulness training, psychoeducation
	Structured guidance and skills-building	Workshops, simulation-based programs, collaborative problem-solving guidance, self-assessment strategies
	Technology and community-based support	Online support (peer/professional), coach-delivered telephone or text support, care-manager-led programs, access to community resources
Practical (n = 12, 18%)	Home-based functional support	Medical task training for post-hospital care Nurse-provided daily care support, temporary respite care with trained nurses taking over daily care
	Material assistance	Distribution of care supplies
Financial (n = 8, 12%)	Direct financial benefits	Cash payments, tax credits
	Subsidized or free services	Free memberships (e.g., gym, cooking classes)
	Financial guidance	Financial counseling
Legal (n = 1, 2%)	Caregiver rights, absence from work, and tax benefits	Legal advice

Educational support primarily targeted transferrable (e.g., problem-solving and management skills during crises, communication skills) and care-specific caregiver skills (e.g., caregiving techniques, care strategies and care coordination, and rehabilitation skills) to reduce caregiver burden.^19-21 Health literacy was at the core of educational support, including knowledge on health behaviors (e.g., nutrition, physical activity), how to manage and prevent various conditions, health system navigation skills, and medication management skills. Other educational support components included helping caregivers gain knowledge on how to access resources, seek for support and managing financial decisions.

Social and emotional support primarily targeted the emotional resilience and well-being of caregivers such as through coping strategies, relaxation stress management techniques as well as activities that promote self-awareness, self-esteem, resilience, emotional adjustment and engagement, self-compassion, empowerment, and motivation.^22-24 Many support interventions also targeted the reduction of psychological outcomes such as exhaustion, depersonalization, fear, and perceived burden. They also aimed to fostering social and peer connection to reduce isolation, increase empathy and build hope.

Practical support primarily included strategies to support physical functioning at home and practical help with daily care activities, often led by nurses and regular in-home visits.^25,26 One study looked at relieving caregiver burden by giving them a few days off and instead letting nurses take over care. Other interventions provided medical task training for post-hospital care as well as the distribution of care supplies.

Financial support was marginally addressed and included benefits that help facilitate healthy behaviors (e.g., free gym memberships), financial counseling, cash payments for provided care activities and other benefits such as Medicaid waivers and tax credits.^27,28 Findings show that there are large differences in the availability and adequacy of financial support measures. Legal support was less commonly addressed but included provisions such as caregiver rights to absence from work and tax benefits.²⁹

Outcomes Measured and Main Findings

Six outcomes were most frequently reported. Caregiver burden, including physical, mental, social, and financial burden, as well as caregiver self-efficacy, including preparedness, and skills were the 2 most common outcomes, reported in 27 studies (40%) each. Quality of life domains for caregivers and patients were addressed in 18 studies (27%), followed by overall psychological well-being, stress, and emotional exhaustion (n = 16, 24%), outcomes related to depression and anxiety (n = 15, 22%), as well physical functioning and health, including strength, function, and activity levels (n = 15, 22%). Other commonly reported outcomes were quality of care, including the relationship and communication between informal caregivers and patients (n = 8, 12%), costs (n = 6, 9%), as well caregiver coping skills and resilience (n = 4, 6%). Table 2 summarizes the main findings across the 6 most reported outcomes. Patient reported outcomes were reported in 27% of studies (n = 18). Supplemental File 4 provides all included studies categorized by the most common outcomes.

Table 2.

Main Findings Across 6 Most Common Outcomes.

Outcome (number of studies addressing outcome)	Support interventions	Key findings^a
Caregiver burden (n = 27, 40%)	(a) Physical activity programs	Reductions in caregiver burden were reported in 22 studies (22/27, 81%).Two studies (2/27, 7%) did not provide conclusive results on caregiver burden.
	(b) In-home and remote education and counseling
	(c) Financial counseling
	(d) Peer-support groups
	(e) Psychoeducation
	(f) Family-centered training
	(g) Daily care support
	(h) Group skills training and group discussions
	(i) Mindfulness-based compassion therapy
Self-efficacy, preparedness, and skills (n = 27, 40%)	(a) Problem-solving training	A positive impact on self-efficacy, preparedness and skills of caregivers was reported in 22 studies (22/27, 81%).Two studies (2/27, 7%) did not provide conclusive results on self-efficacy, preparedness and skills.
	(b) Behavior support education/training
	(c) Empowerment-based health education
	(d) Physical activity programs
	(e) Telephone-delivered counseling
	(f) Psychoeducation
	(g) Communication training
	(h) Peer interactions
	(i) Discharge training
Quality of life (n = 18, 27%)	(a) Group hope therapy	Improvements in the quality of life of caregivers and patients were reported in 11 studies (13/18, 72%)Five studies (5/18, 28%) did not provide conclusive results on quality of life.
	(b) Discharge training
	(c) Cognitive restructuring training
	(d) Financial counseling
	(e) Multicomponent education programs
	(f) Physical activity programs
	(g) Family-centered education
	(h) Daily care support
	(i) Psychoeducation
Psychological well-being and stress (n = 16, 22%)	(a) Simulation and lecture-based programs	Reduced stress and overall psychological well-being of caregivers and patients were reported in 15 studies (15/16, 94%).One study (1/16, 6%) did not provide conclusive results on stress and overall psychological well-being.
	(b) Peer support
	(c) Music-based interventions
	(d) Care manager-led support interventions
Depression/anxiety (n = 15, 22%)	(a) Telephone-delivered programs	Significant reductions in depressive symptoms and anxiety of caregivers and patients were reported in 7 studies (7/15, 47%).Two studies (2/15, 13%) did not provide conclusive results on depression and anxiety.
	(b) Culturally sensitive peer group education
	(c) Mindfulness-based compassion training
	(d) Empowerment theory-based education
Physical functioning and health (n = 15, 22%)	(a) Physical activity programs	Increased physical functioning and health of caregivers and patients were reported in 11 studies (11/15, 73%).Two studies (2/15, 13%) did not provide conclusive results on physical functioning and health.
	(b) Psychoeducation
	(d) Individual and group counseling
	(e) Peer interactions
	(f) Nurse-led rehabilitation

Counts are not mutually exclusive; some studies reported both reductions and no effects on caregiver burden across different analyses.

Main Findings by Type of Support

In 22 studies (33%), educational support improved caregivers’ knowledge, skills preparedness, and self-efficacy which was often linked to reduced caregiver burden and enhanced quality of life. Various educational approaches such as face-to-face training sessions, remote (e.g., online, telephone) counseling, online toolkits (e.g., webinars), psychoeducation, and other multi-component tailored programs often showed effectiveness in mitigating caregiving challenges, improving communication, coping strategies, as well as caregiving techniques across different conditions including dementia, cancer, stroke, and other chronic illnesses. In 21 studies (31%) social and emotional support interventions were linked to lower caregiver isolation, distress, anxiety, and depression while enhancing overall psychological well-being, hope, and emotional connections. Social and emotional support was often (n = 45, 67%) combined with educational components and to improve caregivers’ mood, coping styles, and social connectedness, contributing to better caregiving experiences

In 18 studies (27%) that included practical support, such as for activities of daily living and care, respite care, rehabilitation of patients, and physical activity, improved caregivers’ physical function, reduced their burden, and often provided temporary relief, which in turn contributed to improved quality of life and overall care quality. Practical support was often (n = 16, 24%) integrated with educational and social/emotional components for holistic caregiver assistance. Financial support was provided indirectly (e.g., free gym memberships) or directly (e.g., caregiver payments). Although public policies for financial aid exist, they are often insufficient as well as incompatible with actual caregiver needs. Reimbursing informal caregivers can mitigate workforce shortages and reduce caregiver burden, yet comprehensive, needs-based and well-integrated financial support systems still lack. Financial assistance was noted as a critical complement to other support types to sustain caregiving. Findings on legal support were not found, highlighting a need for more research on legal protections and support frameworks for informal caregivers.

Who’s Often Excluded from Studies?

The most common reasons for caregiver exclusion in the included studies were mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities (n = 13, 19%), as well as past or current chronic or life-limiting conditions/disabilities (n = 13, 19%), and communication and language deficits or barriers (n = 12, 18%). Being too young (e.g., below 21) or underage was also reported frequently (n = 11, 16%) as exclusion reason. Caregivers with no family relationship to their patients and/or not living with them were also frequently excluded (n = 7, 10%), as well as non-primary caregivers (n = 5, 8%). Finally, paid informal caregivers (n = 3, 5%), with low literacy levels (n = 3, 5%) and no or unreliable access to telephone, email or computer (n = 3, 5%) were also mentioned as exclusion reasons.

Barriers and Facilitators of Caregiver Support

All studies mentioned at least 1 barrier (challenge) or facilitator. We categorized barriers and facilitators of informal caregiver support into 3 overarching themes: (1) caregiver-related barriers/facilitators, (2) intervention-related barriers/facilitators, and (3) system-level barriers/facilitators. Tables 3 and 4 provide a detailed summary of reported barriers and facilitators. Supplemental File 5 provides studies categorized by barriers and facilitators.

Table 3.

Barriers of Caregiver Support Interventions.

Barrier(s)	Description
Caregiver-related
Burden and emotional stress (n = 19, 28%)	Emotional exhaustion, stress, anxiety, depression, social isolation, care-related burden, and fear of increasing burden can hinder access to and participation in various caregiver support interventions.
Time constraints (n = 13, 19%)	Multiple caregiving roles, fatigue, inflexible scheduling, reluctance to leave home, and caregiving-related time pressure can hinder engagement with support interventions.
Low health and digital literacy (n = 6, 9%)	Low health literacy, low digital literacy, and experience with digital resources, as well as low access to technology limit reach, use, and usefulness of support interventions.
Intervention-related
Design and delivery (n = 8, 12%)	Short intervention duration, overemphasis on theory over practice, inadequately supervised remote interventions, and lack of relevant/ adequate support can hinder the reach and success of support.
Participant recruitment and retention (n = 5, 8%)	Support interventions with small sample sizes and restrictive eligibility criteria, difficulties in recruiting hard-to-reach and more vulnerable caregivers (e.g., those with very high caregiving demands) can leave caregivers that require most help excluded.
Lacking cultural sensitivity(n = 2, 3%)	Language barriers, stigma, lack of culturally sensitive resources can lead to privacy issues and hinder access and engagement.
System-related
Lack of resources (n = 9, 13%)	Shortages of specialized nursing staff, unequal distribution of resources (e.g., between urban and rural regions), as well as lack of long-term financial support, and strict eligibility criteria for funding/financial aid limit the sustainability of support interventions.
Systemic barriers (n = 5, 8%)	Limited recognition and support from authorities and key community stakeholders and skepticism from healthcare providers can hinder support interventions.

Table 4.

Facilitators of Caregiver Support Interventions.

Facilitator(s)	Description
Caregiver-related
Self-efficacy and flexibility (n = 4, 6%)	Adequate levels of caregiver self-efficacy and flexibility foster engagement with support interventions.
Positive attitudes (n = 6, 9%)	Caregivers’ appreciation, positive experience and perceived added value of externally provided support increases participation and engagement.
Adequate health and digital literacy (n = 3, 5%)	Adequate health and digital literacy, as well as access to technology increase reach, use, and usefulness of support interventions.
Intervention-related
Structured and tailored designs (n = 16, 24%)	Support interventions that use evidence-based, well-structured approaches, validated monitoring tools (e.g., to measure caregiver outcomes), and personalized approaches (e.g., adapted to caregiver needs and culture) drive reach and success.
Flexible delivery (n = 14, 21%)	Support interventions that provide flexibility, such as combinations of nurse-led programs with telehealth/telephone-based elements and adaptable duration and location can drive engagement and success.
Engagement-driven content (n = 12, 18%)	Support interventions with interactive and active learning components, peer and specialist support (e.g., through telephone follow-ups) as well as involvement of caregivers (e.g., in decision-making and goal setting) can drive engagement and success.
Incentives (n = 5, 8%)	Support interventions that provide incentives such as free gym memberships, individualized coaching, and motivational messaging addressing financial and motivational barriers and personal growth.
System-related
Healthcare integration and collaboration (n = 7, 10%)	Support interventions based on interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., nurses, social workers, and community health workers), academic partnerships and direct healthcare links can facilitate success.
Policy and financial support (n = 5, 8%)	Support by government programs, local authorities, and community stakeholders, with outreach efforts and options of sustainable funding shape the long-term success of caregiver support.

Existing Evidence Gaps

Finally, we extracted reported evidence gaps and future developments. The following 4 themes emerged: (1) Need for robust evidence on how support interventions work, (2) need for stronger personalization and adaptability of support, (3) need for holistic and collaborative approaches, and (4) need for stronger emphasis on the financial support of informal caregivers. First, studies underlined the need for robust evidence on how support interventions work.^30,31 Studies reported that this requires larger-scale and multi-center studies across caregiver groups, diseases and cultural contexts, with an emphasis on long-term and sustained effects.^24,32,33 Needs-based research that explores cultural, ethnic, gender, and regional differences in caregiver burden, experiences and preferences should be prioritized.^34-36 Second, studies reported that future caregiver-support interventions should be personalized adaptable to remote, online or hybrid delivery, to reach harder-to-reach caregiver subgroups (e.g., rural residents) and ensure a better fit into daily caregiving schedules.^37,38

Third, some authors highlighted that future support should be holistic and ensure that those involved (e.g., nurses, healthcare providers) are well-trained and equally supported. That will require measure to address workforce shortages, standardized training curricula, stronger partnerships between healthcare organizations and community networks, and the incorporation of caregiver support into larger care models.^19,39 Fourth, a stronger focus on the financial support of caregivers is required. That requires better assessment of financial strains of informal caregivers, such as how caregiving impacts income and career development. Build on economic analyses, future support should be backed up by innovative policies that will enable financial aid and reimbursement. That includes more streams of financial support directly directed to caregivers, better access to community resources and solutions that mitigate the impact of informal caregiving on employment and career.^37,40-42

Discussion

Our findings reveal a substantial and growing body of evidence that highlights the potential positive impact of various support measures tailored toward informal caregivers, while simultaneously highlighting critical gaps and implementation challenges that must be addressed to optimize informal care caregiver support systems.

Combining Education with Social and Emotional Support

The literature suggests that educational interventions, addressed in almost all of the studies included in this review, are one of the most frequently used caregiver support measures. This finding reflects previous research which suggests that knowledge deficits, including low health literacy, constitute a fundamental barrier to effective caregiving.⁴³ Multiple studies reported that educational interventions improved key outcomes such as caregiver preparedness (e.g., to provide care under stress or emergencies), disease-specific knowledge, and care-related skills across diverse patient populations, from dementia care to complex medical conditions requiring technical skills. Previous reviews have reported educational effects on caregiver burden, patient outcomes, and quality of life.^44,45 Education was commonly combined with social and emotional support interventions, with reported positive effects on caregiver psychological well-being, burden, anxiety, depression, and isolation. This is aligned with previous literature which suggests that education and psychological support can significantly reduce caregiver burden, coping skills, self-efficacy, and quality of life.^46,47

The Neglected Role of Financial Support

Financial support interventions, while only marginally addressed, were described as essential for caregiver well-being and system sustainability. The lack of financial resources for (a) informal caregivers, (b) and support interventions were commonly reported barriers of intervention accessibility, interventions success as well as overall informal care delivery. Previous research has shown that financial difficulties not only increased stress and limited access to support services but also created “double burdens” where caregivers faced simultaneous financial and caregiving responsibilities.^48,49 The limited representation of financial support interventions in our review likely reflects the complex policy landscape surrounding caregiver compensation as well as how social insurance systems are designed, rather than lack of need for financial support. While in some countries, such as Switzerland, Germany, Sweden, France, Austria, the Netherlands, and the USA there has been considerable movements toward direct informal caregiver payments, in others, financial support remains scarce.⁵⁰ This fragmented approach creates substantial inequities in caregiver support across geographic regions. Previous research suggests that the financial needs of informal caregivers and their patients often remain unmet.⁵¹ Our findings suggest that the provision of financial incentives such as free gym memberships and individualized coaching can mitigate some financial barriers and help support caregiver well-being, however, are most likely not enough to meet the full financial needs of informal caregivers.

Emphasis on “Home”

As expected, most identified caregiver support interventions were tailored to context of home care, reflecting both the reality that most informal care occurs within domestic settings as well as the economic imperative driving this trend.⁵² This emphasis on home has important implications for the design of caregiver support intervention, as it must account for the complex dynamics of family relationships, variable home environments, and conflicting private responsibilities. The focus on home-based care reflects broader healthcare policy trends toward community-based care models.⁵³ While receiving care at home is often framed in terms of patient preference and quality of life, the economic drivers are equally compelling. Home-based care, supported by informal caregivers, represents the most cost-effective approach to LTC delivery, with institutional care costs typically significantly higher.⁵⁴ This economic reality makes support for informal caregivers not merely beneficial but essential for healthcare system sustainability. From a home health care management perspective, our findings highlight the importance of integrating informal care and routine home-based care services, including communication and coordination with healthcare professionals (e.g., nurses, home care agencies, and other community-based providers.

Culturally Sensitive Caregiver Support

The international scope of included studies, spanning diverse cultural contexts from Turkey to Australia to Iran, reveals both universal caregiver support needs and culture-specific adaptation requirements. The lack of culturally sensitive support interventions, which includes language barriers and lack of content and resources that align with caregiver norms, values, and beliefs, were reported as important barriers to caregiver support. Ensuring that an intervention is culturally sensitive is not an easy task and comes with challenges and uncertainties, however, can be essential to enabling support access for vulnerable caregiver groups (e.g., elderly, ethnic minorities).^55,56 The lack of cultural sensitivity is related to another common barrier, that of negative perceptions of caregivers toward support interventions and services.⁵⁷ That includes beliefs that support is irrelevant, time-consuming, or emotionally/practically difficult. Previous research has shown that caregivers with ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to reject external support if that is not aligned with cultural values.^57,58 Culturally adapted interventions have also been associated with higher satisfaction rates among caregivers who perceive them as more valuable and helpful, as well as with reduced caregiver burden and improved patient outcomes.^59,60

Limitations and Methodological Considerations

This review has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. Our inclusion criteria, while comprehensive, may have excluded relevant studies published before 2019 or in languages other than English. The scoping review methodology, while appropriate for mapping the breadth of available evidence, does not permit formal quality assessment or meta-analysis of outcomes. Additionally, publication bias may have influenced our findings, particularly regarding financial interventions where policy-sensitive research may be less likely to reach publication. The predominance of studies from high-income countries may limit generalizability to low-resource settings where caregiver support needs may be most acute but financing mechanisms most constrained. We conducted data extraction with an AI tool (Elicit) which improves efficiency yet may introduce some limitations regarding data accuracy and consistency, as algorithms can misinterpret context and miss more nuanced data elements. We minimized these limitations by manually reviewing AI-extracted data.

Conclusion

Our review suggests that the scientific literature on informal caregiver support is emerging with many support interventions reporting positive impact across caregiver outcomes, including well-being, burden, resilience, and capacity. Educational and social-emotional interventions are currently the most frequently addressed support measures, with reported benefits across diverse caregiver populations and caregiving contexts. Practical support interventions were less commonly addressed yet also reported positive findings. Financial and legal interventions were only marginally addressed despite broader evidence that financial burden is a key driver of caregiver burden. This suggests that the financial and legal support needs of informal caregivers remain inadequately addressed in scientific literature. Our findings also underscore multiple caregiver-related, intervention-related and system-related barriers, including health literacy gaps, the lack of culturally sensitive interventions, as well as the insufficient funding and resources. Future research should prioritize comprehensive economic evaluations, a stronger focus on financial support, a better inclusion of vulnerable and currently underrepresented caregiver populations, while maintaining focus on rigorous evaluations as well as personalized, adaptable, and culturally sensitive caregiver support.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 – Supplemental material for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers by Vasileios Nittas, Emilie Melkestian, Alexia Bikou, Andreas Hellmann, Anja Frei, Viktor von Wyl and Milo A. Puhan in Home Health Care Management & Practice

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 – Supplemental material for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers by Vasileios Nittas, Emilie Melkestian, Alexia Bikou, Andreas Hellmann, Anja Frei, Viktor von Wyl and Milo A. Puhan in Home Health Care Management & Practice

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 – Supplemental material for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers by Vasileios Nittas, Emilie Melkestian, Alexia Bikou, Andreas Hellmann, Anja Frei, Viktor von Wyl and Milo A. Puhan in Home Health Care Management & Practice

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-4-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 – Supplemental material for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-4-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers by Vasileios Nittas, Emilie Melkestian, Alexia Bikou, Andreas Hellmann, Anja Frei, Viktor von Wyl and Milo A. Puhan in Home Health Care Management & Practice

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-5-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 – Supplemental material for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-5-hhc-10.1177_10848223261428104 for Supporting the Supporters. A Systematic Scoping Review of Support Interventions for Informal Caregivers by Vasileios Nittas, Emilie Melkestian, Alexia Bikou, Andreas Hellmann, Anja Frei, Viktor von Wyl and Milo A. Puhan in Home Health Care Management & Practice

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

ORCID iD

Vasileios Nittas

Ethical Considerations

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

VN, MAP, AH and EM conceptualized the study. VN, EM, and AB conducted all screening stages. VN and EM wrote the manuscript. MAP, AF, AH, VvW and AB reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was partially supported by Pflegewegweiser GmbH. The funder had no involvement in the design, data collection or publication of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Only publicly available data from previously published studies was used for this scoping review.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Rudnicka

Napierała

Podfigurna

Męczekalski

Smolarczyk

Grymowicz

The World Health Organization (WHO) approach to healthy ageing. Maturitas. 2020;139:6-11. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.05.018

Escasain

Storari

Pittet

, et al. Informal caregivers’ health: a literature review. Lausanne, Unisanté – Centre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, 2023 (Raisons de santé 348). Published online 2023.

OECD. Health at a Glance 2023.OECD; 2023.

Guardian. Standing Up and Stepping In. A Modern Look at Caregivers in the US. Guardian; 2023. Accessed October 15, 2025. https://kimberlycsteele.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Guardian_12th_Annual_WBS_Standing_Up_and_Stepping_In_1215.pdf

Rodríguez-González

Rodríguez-Míguez

Claveria

Determinants of caregiving burden among informal caregivers of adult care recipients with chronic illness. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(9-10):1335-1346. doi:10.1111/jocn.15683

Del-Pino-Casado

Priego-Cubero

López-Martínez

Orgeta

Subjective caregiver burden and anxiety in informal caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0247143. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247143

Chong

Crowe

Mentor

Pandanaboyana

Sharp

Systematic review of caregiver burden, unmet needs and quality-of-life among informal caregivers of patients with pancreatic cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;31(1):74. doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07468-7

Lindt

van Berkel

Mulder

BC.

Determinants of overburdening among informal carers: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):304. doi:10.1186/s12877-020-01708-3

Achilike

Beauchamp

JES

Cron

, et al. Caregiver burden and associated factors among informal caregivers of stroke survivors. J Neurosci Nurs. 2020;52(6):277-283. doi:10.1097/JNN.0000000000000552

10.

Biliunaite

Kazlauskas

Sanderman

Andersson

Informal caregiver support needs and burden: a survey in Lithuania. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e054607. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054607

11.

Mcmullan

Lohfeld

McKnight

AJ.

Needs of informal caregivers of people with a rare disease: a rapid review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2022;12(12):e063263. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063263

12.

Arksey

O’Malley

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19-32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616

13.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

KK.

Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(69):1-9. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

14.

Nitas

Puhan

Hellmann

OSF registration: supported informal caregiving. A scoping review. 2025. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://osf.io/r4aks/overview

15.

Rayyan Systems Inc. Rayyan Intelligent Systematic Review. 2021. Accessed October 20, 2025. https://www.rayyan.ai

16.

Elicit. Elicit: The AI Research Assistant. 2025. Accessed October 23, 2025. https://elicit.com

17.

Moher

Shamseer

Clarke

, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):148-160. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

18.

Abdigaravand

Goudarzi

Hasanvand

Birjandi

Galehdar

Hojati

The effect of education and telephone follow-up on the burden of family caregivers of patients with cancer. Sage Open Nurs. 2023;9:23779608231170444. doi:10.1177/23779608231170444

19.

Goodman

Schroeder

Kunkel

Hendel

KR.

Comparison of in-person and virtual implementations of an Obesity Prevention Culinary Nutrition Education Program for Family Care Providers. Obesities. 2024;4(3):270-280. doi:10.3390/obesities4030022

20.

Ibrahiem

El-Maksoud

MMA

. Training program for caregivers to prevent pressure ulcers among elderly residents at geriatric homes. Front Nurs. 2021;8(3):249-259. doi:10.2478/fon-2021-0026

21.

Rexhaj

Martinez

Golay

, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a targeted support program for informal caregivers in adult psychiatry. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1284096. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1284096

22.

Odell-Miller

Blauth

Bloska

, et al. The HOMESIDE Music Intervention: a Training Protocol for family carers of people living with dementia. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2022;12(12):1812-1832. doi:10.3390/ejihpe12120127

23.

Lewis

Griffith

Shands

Zahlis

EH.

Helping us heal: telephone versus in-person marital communication and support counseling for spouse caregivers of wives with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(1):793-803. doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06439-8

24.

Friedman

Supporting families: formal HCBS supports for informal family caregivers of people with IDD. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2025;37(1):5-33. doi:10.1007/s10882-023-09942-4

25.

Vandepitte

Putman

Van Den Noortgate

Verhaeghe

Annemans

Cost-effectiveness of an in-home respite care program to support informal caregivers of persons with dementia: a model-based analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;35(6):601-609. doi:10.1002/gps.5276

26.

PLOS ONE Staff. Correction: the impact of long-term care insurance on family care for older adults: the mediating role of intergenerational financial support. PLoS One. 2024;19(10):e0312716. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312716

27.

Caplin

Beauchamp

Weiss

, et al. Effects of aerobic exercise training on daily psychological processes in family caregivers: secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial. Affect Sci. 2021;2(1):48-57. doi:10.1007/s42761-020-00026-6

28.

Cohen

Benvenisti

Public policy for supporting employed family caregivers of the elderly: the Israeli case. Isr Aff. 2020;26(3):431-449. doi:10.1080/13537121.2020.1754590

29.

Smrokowska-Reichmann

Janus

Tamplin

, et al. The HOMESIDE study-a research project to support people living with dementia and their family caregivers: preliminary report on reading intervention. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2024;10:23337214241239176. doi:10.1177/23337214241239174

30.

Lök

Bademli

Lök

The effect of a physical activity intervention on burden and healthy lifestyle behavior in family caregivers of patients with schizophrenia: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2023;42:33-39. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2022.12.006

31.

Chesneau

Faucher

Morin

Le Dorze

Evaluation of AID-COM, a communication-focused program for family carers of people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease: a pilot study (innovative practice). Dementia. 2021;20(2):779-790. doi:10.1177/1471301219887038

32.

Kim

Lee

Choi

Kim

EG.

Effects of the discharge education program on family caregivers caring for patients on mechanical home ventilation in Korea: a pilot test. Home Health Care Manage Pract. 2022;34(4):258-268. doi:10.1177/10848223221096344

33.

Romme

Hermans

Bosveld

Plak

Sehlbach

van Bokhoven

MA.

How patients and informal caregivers can be trained to effectively contribute to improved quality of healthcare services: action research on the development of the Dutch patient as a Person Academy. BMJ Open. 2024;14(12):e079712. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079712

34.

Gambella

Valenza

Giulietti

, et al. “The community that takes care of itself”: A feasibility study to support families caring for a loved one with Alzheimer disease. Fam Community Health. 2022;45(4):238-246. doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000333

35.

Chu

AMY

Woo

DHY

Tiwari

Yuk

MKP

. Which types of family caregivers are more prone to developing depression? Leveraging non-financial social support to mitigate depression. Curr Psychol. 2025;44(1):73-84. doi:10.1007/s12144-024-07110-1

36.

Lee

Kim

Rousseau

, et al. Community health workers supporting diverse family caregivers of persons with dementia: preliminary qualitative results from a randomized home-based study. Dementia. 2025;24(2):249-268. doi:10.1177/14713012241302367

37.

Starr

Washington

Jabbari

, et al. Pain Management Education for Rural Hospice Family Caregivers: a pilot study with embedded implementation evaluation. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2024;41(6):619-633. doi:10.1177/10499091231191114

38.

Huang

Shyu

Hsu

Liao

Huang

Hsieh

SH.

Effectiveness of a health education program for people with dementia and their family caregivers: an intervention by nurse practitioners. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2024;50:147-159. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2024.03.018

39.

Jutkowitz

Scerpella

Pizzi

, et al. Dementia family caregivers’ willingness to pay for an in-home program to reduce behavioral symptoms and caregiver stress. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(4):563-572. doi:10.1007/s40273-019-00785-6

40.

Martindale-Adams

Zuber

Burns

Nichols

LO.

Caring again: support for parent caregivers of wounded, ill, and/or injured adult children veterans. NeuroRehabilitation. 2023;52(1):93-108. doi:10.3233/NRE-220126

41.

Yiu

Zang

Chau

JPC

. Understanding the experience of family caregivers of people with dementia in a culturally tailored support group programme: a qualitative study. Geriatr Nurs. 2023;52:133-141. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2023.05.018

42.

Häikiö

Cloutier

Rugkåsa

Is health literacy of family carers associated with carer burden, quality of life, and time spent on informal care for older persons living with dementia?

PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241982. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241982

43.

Marim

Silva

Taminato

Barbosa

DA.

Effectiveness of educational programs on reducing the burden of caregivers of elderly individuals with dementia: a systematic review. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2013;21 Spec No:267-275. doi:10.1590/s0104-11692013000700033

44.

Di Lorenzo

Dardi

Serafini

Amorado

Ferri

Filippini

Psychoeducational intervention for caregivers of adolescents and young adults with psychiatric disorders: a 7-year systematic review. J Clin Med. 2024;13(23):7010. doi:10.3390/jcm13237010

45.

Montoro-Rodriguez

Ramsey

Bilbrey

Kajiyama

Thompson

Gallagher-Thompson

Caregiver thrive, learn, & connect: testing the efficacy of an online psychoeducational program for family caregivers. Clin Gerontol. 2024;47(1):39-49. doi:10.1080/07317115.2023.2232352

46.

Mirhosseini

Imani Parsa

Moghadam-Roshtkhar

Basirinezhad

Ameri

Ebrahimi

Support based on psychoeducation intervention to address quality of life and care burden among caregivers of patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1430371. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1430371

47.

Honda

Nishida

Ono

Tsukigi

Honda

Impact of financial burden on family caregivers of older adults using long-term Care Insurance Services. Sage Open Nurs. 2025;11:23779608251383384. doi:10.1177/23779608251383386

48.

Pieper

Kasdorf

Voltz

Strupp

“What do you get? Nothing”: a qualitative analysis of the financial impact of family caregiving for a dying relative at home in Germany. Healthcare. 2025;13(7):10-11. doi:10.3390/healthcare13070810

49.

Da Roit

Le Bihan

. Similar and yet so different: cash-for-care in six European countries’ long-term care policies. Milbank Q. 2010;88(3):286-309. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00601.x

50.

Vaingankar

Subramaniam

Picco

, et al. Perceived unmet needs of informal caregivers of people with dementia in Singapore. Int Psychogeriatr. 2013;25(10):1605-1619. doi:10.1017/S1041610213001051

51.

CDC. Characteristics and Health Status of Informal Unpaid Caregivers — 44 States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 2015–2017. CDC; 2020.

52.

Yun

Kwon

Comparing health outcomes and costs of home and community-based services (HCBS) versus institutional care (IC) for long-term care insurance beneficiaries in South Korea: can the less severe benefit more?

Health Policy. 2025;161:105427. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105427

53.

Chappell

Dlitt

Hollander

Miller

McWilliam

Comparative costs of home care and residential care. Gerontologist. 2004;44(3):389-400. doi:10.1093/geront/44.3.389

54.

Napoles

Chadiha

Eversley

Moreno-John

Reviews: developing culturally sensitive dementia caregiver interventions: are we there yet?

Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement. 2010;25(5):389-406. doi:10.1177/1533317510370957

55.

Barnes

Phillips

Pickett

Haider

Robinson-Joyce

Ahmed

Rapid review: ten ways to improve support for minoritised informal adult carers at local government policy level to redress inequality. Public Health in Practice. 2024;8:100543. doi:10.1016/j.puhip.2024.100543

56.

Greenwood

Habibi

Smith

Manthorpe

Barriers to access and minority ethnic carers’ satisfaction with social care services in the community: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative literature. Health Soc Care Community. 2015;23(1):64-78. doi:10.1111/hsc.12116

57.

Stenberg

Hjelm

Migrant informal caregiver perceptions and experiences of caring for a family member with dementia: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Clin Nurs. 2023;32(9-10):2178-2192. doi:10.1111/jocn.16390

58.

Cheng

Losada

Thompson

Gallagher-Thompson

Psychological interventions for dementia caregivers: what we have achieved, what we have learned. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2019;21(7):59. doi:10.1007/s11920-019-1045-9

59.

AuBuchon

Galván

CJC

Duron

, et al. Randomized trial of a community-based, culturally tailored intervention: high engagement among Latina breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2025;131(11):e35842. doi:10.1002/cncr.35842

60.

Nguyen

, et al. Testing the efficacy of a culturally adapted family dementia caregiver intervention (REACH VN): results from a cluster randomized controlled trial in northern Vietnam. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2025;33(5):535-545. doi:10.1016/j.jagp.2024.10.011

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

0.03 MB