Every row of the evidence table

A pilot designed to test feasibility; 68 carers and a 2-week outcome.

No difference from waitlist control on the primary burden outcome or on mood, WHOQOL-Bref or productivity; only the CarerQoL-VAS quality-of-life score was higher in the intervention group. The trial recruited 93 of a 194 target.

At the 1-month comparison the automated self-guided programme reduced depression and burden and increased positive gains versus waitlist; anxiety did not differ. Group differences mostly disappeared once controls received the programme.

A factorial trial of components: the mindfulness component carried the benefit and amplified the others.

Burden fell in both arms with no significant difference between the two platforms. There was no untreated control, so the within-arm improvement cannot be separated from time or attention.

Direction is for NIDUS-Family: an 89% probability of cost-effectiveness from a health and social care perspective (87% societal) and £8,934 (37%) lower average costs, though the cost difference's confidence interval includes zero.

The outcome is how prepared carers felt to decide about firearm access, not whether any injury was avoided.

Benefit in Hispanic and White caregivers and in Black spousal caregivers; not in Black non-spousal caregivers.

Direction is for value for money: APPLE-Tree had a 96% probability of being cost-effective per cognition point at a £30 000 threshold but only 12% on QALYs, which were slightly lower in the intervention arm. Post hoc subgroups suggested better value in non-White and socioeconomically disadvantaged participants.

The community health worker programme achieved verified linkage to medical care in 16.7% of dyads versus none in the control arm. Caregiver outcomes were largely unchanged, with self-efficacy favouring control.

No difference between health-system care, community-based care or usual care on either primary outcome. Caregiver self-efficacy did improve in both active arms.

Direction is for the extended nursing role intervention: 74% fewer unmet needs and higher quality of life at six months, with a small QALY gain at about 1,425 EUR added cost; no effect on caregiver burden.

The two perspectives disagree: the digitally supported care management system dominated usual care for the public payer (lower costs, marginally more QALYs, 72-79% probability of cost-effectiveness) but cost €331,000 per QALY from a societal perspective (33-35% probability).

Direction is for collaborative dementia care management: fewer neuropsychiatric symptoms, lower caregiver burden, better mental health and 0.137 QALYs gained at no significant added cost (3186€ per QALY) over 36 months; no difference in antidementia drug use, overall quality of life or inappropriate medication.

No benefit and no harm: screening did not change family-member quality of life, preparedness or self-efficacy, and did not raise depression or anxiety. Only 5.1% screened positive.

The outcome is how many diagnoses were made, not whether anyone was better off. The passive digital marker alone did not raise detection (AOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.11).

The primary outcome did not improve. Emergency department visits and hospitalisations were lower (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.31-0.65), which is a secondary outcome.

The outcome is how prepared carers felt to decide about firearm access, not whether any injury was avoided.

Direction is for DREAMS START against treatment as usual: a 78% probability of being cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY, with cost and QALY differences individually non-significant. The clinical sleep result is in the table under its own row.