Twenty studies (17 quantitative and three qualitative studies; sample size range 20 to 642) were included in the review. Most quantitative studies scored over half of the achievable score for quality, but scores for each item by study were not presented. Two qualitative studies seemed reasonable quality; and one was considered to be poor by the review authors.
Psycho-educational skill building interventions (seven quantitative studies; one qualitative study): Quantitative studies showed a positive impact of the intervention, at least in terms of stabilising levels of depression, anxiety, emotional well-being, quality of life and attitudes towards caregiving (some studies showed no change in the intervention group and a decline in control groups). According to the review authors, a UK-based qualitative study that focused on diverse ethnic populations indicated the need for more culturally sensitive services at the point of dementia diagnosis and also provided insight on delays in seeking a diagnosis. Overall, study quality was mixed.
Psychotherapy-counselling interventions (one qualitative study): The qualitative component of a mixed methods study was reported. The authors stated that this study did not examine carer views, and provided only case vignettes and clinician views. Study quality was considered to be poor.
Multicomponent interventions (five quantitative studies; one qualitative study): Quantitative studies showed a positive impact of the interventions, largely in terms of improvements in depression and social support. The qualitative study showed the intervention to be stimulating and rewarding, and increased caregivers' ability to cope with everyday life and social relations.
Technology-based interventions (five quantitative studies): Studies showed positive impacts of the intervention in terms of improved depression, burden, and social support. These studies were considered by the authors as the most promising in terms of methodological quality.