Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver–Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers—Exercising Together or Not at All?

Abstract Background and Objectives Though exercise for care recipients receives considerable emphasis, few dyadic studies focus on caregivers. This systematic review identified dyadic exercise interventions, which measured outcomes for older adult caregivers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Gerontologist 2021-09, Vol.61 (6), p.e283-e301
Hauptverfasser: Doyle, Kecia L, Toepfer, Max, Bradfield, Abigail F, Noffke, Alicia, Ausderau, Karla K, Andreae, Susan, Pickett, Kristen A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e301
container_issue 6
container_start_page e283
container_title The Gerontologist
container_volume 61
creator Doyle, Kecia L
Toepfer, Max
Bradfield, Abigail F
Noffke, Alicia
Ausderau, Karla K
Andreae, Susan
Pickett, Kristen A
description Abstract Background and Objectives Though exercise for care recipients receives considerable emphasis, few dyadic studies focus on caregivers. This systematic review identified dyadic exercise interventions, which measured outcomes for older adult caregivers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were examined to better understand whether caregivers derived greater benefit from exercising with care recipients, or not exercising at all. Research Design and Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify quantitative studies of dyadic exercise interventions in which caregivers enrolled with care recipients, and either coparticipated in exercise; or while their care recipients exercised independently, caregivers received a separate, nonexercise intervention or usual care (UC). To be included, studies had to measure physical or psychosocial outcomes for caregivers. Study quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist. Results Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. In six, the dyad exercised; in five, care recipients exercised while caregivers received a separate program, or UC. Results suggest that caregivers may improve both psychosocial and physical health when exercising together with care recipients. Caregivers who did not exercise but received a separate, nonexercise intervention, such as support, education, or respite, showed psychosocial benefits. Those who received UC were less likely to derive physical or psychosocial benefits. Included studies were fair to good quality with moderate to high risk of bias. Discussion and Implications Often examined secondarily, caregivers are overlooked for participation in interventions with care recipients. This analysis suggests that caregivers may benefit from dyadic interventions in which they either exercise together with their care recipients or receive a separate nonexercise intervention or respite.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/geront/gnaa043
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8361501</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/geront/gnaa043</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2571966750</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-c128a18a59bb48170480e476d5cc8cc94610d9c1b594b4eae7952e90ad89af283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFu1DAURS0EosPAlrUlNrBIaye2Y7OgKkOBSlWR2iKWluO8ZFxl4mAnA7PrB7CDL-yX4DIjKth05Wf53CvfdxF6Tsk-Jao4aCH4fjxoe2MIKx6gGS25zHjB6EM0I4SKTBFa7KEnMV6RdM_z8jHaK3JBGeFkhn5cbOIIKzM6i89h7eAb9g0-_g7Bugi48QEvTIDWrSHcXP-8nRNn3eCgH_G7janja_xlaUZ8EvFbiOMfycXgp2i6O2m8uf61M3V9iy99C-MSAk7smR9xkh913eFT9KgxXYRnu3OOPr8_vlx8zE4_fThZHJ1mluVqzCzNpaHScFVVTNKSMEmAlaLm1kprFROU1MrSiitWMTBQKp6DIqaWyjS5LObozdZ3mKoV1DZFCabTQ3ArEzbaG6f_fendUrd-rWUhKE_7nKOXO4Pgv04ptV65aKHrTA8puc4ZVSXlgouEvvgPvfJT6FM8nfOSKiFKThK1v6Vs8DEGaP5-hhJ9W7TeFq13RSfBq63AT8N97G8vwa50</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2571966750</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver–Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers—Exercising Together or Not at All?</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Doyle, Kecia L ; Toepfer, Max ; Bradfield, Abigail F ; Noffke, Alicia ; Ausderau, Karla K ; Andreae, Susan ; Pickett, Kristen A</creator><contributor>Heyn, Patricia C</contributor><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Kecia L ; Toepfer, Max ; Bradfield, Abigail F ; Noffke, Alicia ; Ausderau, Karla K ; Andreae, Susan ; Pickett, Kristen A ; Heyn, Patricia C</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background and Objectives Though exercise for care recipients receives considerable emphasis, few dyadic studies focus on caregivers. This systematic review identified dyadic exercise interventions, which measured outcomes for older adult caregivers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were examined to better understand whether caregivers derived greater benefit from exercising with care recipients, or not exercising at all. Research Design and Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify quantitative studies of dyadic exercise interventions in which caregivers enrolled with care recipients, and either coparticipated in exercise; or while their care recipients exercised independently, caregivers received a separate, nonexercise intervention or usual care (UC). To be included, studies had to measure physical or psychosocial outcomes for caregivers. Study quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist. Results Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. In six, the dyad exercised; in five, care recipients exercised while caregivers received a separate program, or UC. Results suggest that caregivers may improve both psychosocial and physical health when exercising together with care recipients. Caregivers who did not exercise but received a separate, nonexercise intervention, such as support, education, or respite, showed psychosocial benefits. Those who received UC were less likely to derive physical or psychosocial benefits. Included studies were fair to good quality with moderate to high risk of bias. Discussion and Implications Often examined secondarily, caregivers are overlooked for participation in interventions with care recipients. This analysis suggests that caregivers may benefit from dyadic interventions in which they either exercise together with their care recipients or receive a separate nonexercise intervention or respite.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-9013</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-5341</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnaa043</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32614050</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Caregivers ; Couples ; Dementia ; Dyads ; Exercise ; Health services ; Intervention ; Older people ; Quantitative analysis ; Review ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>The Gerontologist, 2021-09, Vol.61 (6), p.e283-e301</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. 2020</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Sep 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-c128a18a59bb48170480e476d5cc8cc94610d9c1b594b4eae7952e90ad89af283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-c128a18a59bb48170480e476d5cc8cc94610d9c1b594b4eae7952e90ad89af283</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4889-6817</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1583,27915,27916,33765</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Heyn, Patricia C</contributor><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Kecia L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toepfer, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradfield, Abigail F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noffke, Alicia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ausderau, Karla K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andreae, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pickett, Kristen A</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver–Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers—Exercising Together or Not at All?</title><title>The Gerontologist</title><description>Abstract Background and Objectives Though exercise for care recipients receives considerable emphasis, few dyadic studies focus on caregivers. This systematic review identified dyadic exercise interventions, which measured outcomes for older adult caregivers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were examined to better understand whether caregivers derived greater benefit from exercising with care recipients, or not exercising at all. Research Design and Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify quantitative studies of dyadic exercise interventions in which caregivers enrolled with care recipients, and either coparticipated in exercise; or while their care recipients exercised independently, caregivers received a separate, nonexercise intervention or usual care (UC). To be included, studies had to measure physical or psychosocial outcomes for caregivers. Study quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist. Results Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. In six, the dyad exercised; in five, care recipients exercised while caregivers received a separate program, or UC. Results suggest that caregivers may improve both psychosocial and physical health when exercising together with care recipients. Caregivers who did not exercise but received a separate, nonexercise intervention, such as support, education, or respite, showed psychosocial benefits. Those who received UC were less likely to derive physical or psychosocial benefits. Included studies were fair to good quality with moderate to high risk of bias. Discussion and Implications Often examined secondarily, caregivers are overlooked for participation in interventions with care recipients. This analysis suggests that caregivers may benefit from dyadic interventions in which they either exercise together with their care recipients or receive a separate nonexercise intervention or respite.</description><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Couples</subject><subject>Dementia</subject><subject>Dyads</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Quantitative analysis</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0016-9013</issn><issn>1758-5341</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFu1DAURS0EosPAlrUlNrBIaye2Y7OgKkOBSlWR2iKWluO8ZFxl4mAnA7PrB7CDL-yX4DIjKth05Wf53CvfdxF6Tsk-Jao4aCH4fjxoe2MIKx6gGS25zHjB6EM0I4SKTBFa7KEnMV6RdM_z8jHaK3JBGeFkhn5cbOIIKzM6i89h7eAb9g0-_g7Bugi48QEvTIDWrSHcXP-8nRNn3eCgH_G7janja_xlaUZ8EvFbiOMfycXgp2i6O2m8uf61M3V9iy99C-MSAk7smR9xkh913eFT9KgxXYRnu3OOPr8_vlx8zE4_fThZHJ1mluVqzCzNpaHScFVVTNKSMEmAlaLm1kprFROU1MrSiitWMTBQKp6DIqaWyjS5LObozdZ3mKoV1DZFCabTQ3ArEzbaG6f_fendUrd-rWUhKE_7nKOXO4Pgv04ptV65aKHrTA8puc4ZVSXlgouEvvgPvfJT6FM8nfOSKiFKThK1v6Vs8DEGaP5-hhJ9W7TeFq13RSfBq63AT8N97G8vwa50</recordid><startdate>20210901</startdate><enddate>20210901</enddate><creator>Doyle, Kecia L</creator><creator>Toepfer, Max</creator><creator>Bradfield, Abigail F</creator><creator>Noffke, Alicia</creator><creator>Ausderau, Karla K</creator><creator>Andreae, Susan</creator><creator>Pickett, Kristen A</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4889-6817</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210901</creationdate><title>Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver–Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers—Exercising Together or Not at All?</title><author>Doyle, Kecia L ; Toepfer, Max ; Bradfield, Abigail F ; Noffke, Alicia ; Ausderau, Karla K ; Andreae, Susan ; Pickett, Kristen A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-c128a18a59bb48170480e476d5cc8cc94610d9c1b594b4eae7952e90ad89af283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Couples</topic><topic>Dementia</topic><topic>Dyads</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Quantitative analysis</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Doyle, Kecia L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toepfer, Max</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bradfield, Abigail F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noffke, Alicia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ausderau, Karla K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Andreae, Susan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pickett, Kristen A</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The Gerontologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Doyle, Kecia L</au><au>Toepfer, Max</au><au>Bradfield, Abigail F</au><au>Noffke, Alicia</au><au>Ausderau, Karla K</au><au>Andreae, Susan</au><au>Pickett, Kristen A</au><au>Heyn, Patricia C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver–Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers—Exercising Together or Not at All?</atitle><jtitle>The Gerontologist</jtitle><date>2021-09-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>61</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e283</spage><epage>e301</epage><pages>e283-e301</pages><issn>0016-9013</issn><eissn>1758-5341</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background and Objectives Though exercise for care recipients receives considerable emphasis, few dyadic studies focus on caregivers. This systematic review identified dyadic exercise interventions, which measured outcomes for older adult caregivers. Studies that met inclusion criteria were examined to better understand whether caregivers derived greater benefit from exercising with care recipients, or not exercising at all. Research Design and Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify quantitative studies of dyadic exercise interventions in which caregivers enrolled with care recipients, and either coparticipated in exercise; or while their care recipients exercised independently, caregivers received a separate, nonexercise intervention or usual care (UC). To be included, studies had to measure physical or psychosocial outcomes for caregivers. Study quality was assessed via the Downs and Black checklist. Results Eleven studies met inclusion criteria. In six, the dyad exercised; in five, care recipients exercised while caregivers received a separate program, or UC. Results suggest that caregivers may improve both psychosocial and physical health when exercising together with care recipients. Caregivers who did not exercise but received a separate, nonexercise intervention, such as support, education, or respite, showed psychosocial benefits. Those who received UC were less likely to derive physical or psychosocial benefits. Included studies were fair to good quality with moderate to high risk of bias. Discussion and Implications Often examined secondarily, caregivers are overlooked for participation in interventions with care recipients. This analysis suggests that caregivers may benefit from dyadic interventions in which they either exercise together with their care recipients or receive a separate nonexercise intervention or respite.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>32614050</pmid><doi>10.1093/geront/gnaa043</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4889-6817</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-9013
ispartof The Gerontologist, 2021-09, Vol.61 (6), p.e283-e301
issn 0016-9013
1758-5341
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8361501
source Sociological Abstracts; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Caregivers
Couples
Dementia
Dyads
Exercise
Health services
Intervention
Older people
Quantitative analysis
Review
Systematic review
title Systematic Review of Exercise for Caregiver–Care Recipient Dyads: What Is Best for Spousal Caregivers—Exercising Together or Not at All?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T01%3A47%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20Review%20of%20Exercise%20for%20Caregiver%E2%80%93Care%20Recipient%20Dyads:%20What%20Is%20Best%20for%20Spousal%20Caregivers%E2%80%94Exercising%20Together%20or%20Not%20at%20All?&rft.jtitle=The%20Gerontologist&rft.au=Doyle,%20Kecia%20L&rft.date=2021-09-01&rft.volume=61&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e283&rft.epage=e301&rft.pages=e283-e301&rft.issn=0016-9013&rft.eissn=1758-5341&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/geront/gnaa043&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2571966750%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2571966750&rft_id=info:pmid/32614050&rft_oup_id=10.1093/geront/gnaa043&rfr_iscdi=true