Jepson, C., McCorkle, R., Adler, D., Nuamah, I., & Lusk, E. (1999). Effects of home care on caregivers’ psychosocial status. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, 115–120.

The intervention was directed at patients and caregivers (primarily at patients). The standardized nursing intervention protocol included three home visits and six telephone calls over four weeks from an oncology clinical nurse specialist. Intervention activities included

• Problem assessment and monitoring
• Symptom management and teaching of self-care behaviors
• Coordination of resources.

• The sample was comprised of 161 family caregivers of patients older than 60 years.
• Patients
  • Were newly diagnosed (in the past two months) with solid-tumor cancers
  • Were currently hospitalized for surgical cancer treatment
  • Had a prognosis of six months or greater
  • Lived within 50 miles of the study center
  • Had a complex problem at the time of discharge.

Home setting

A controlled trial design was used, with a major limitation.

• Caregiver reaction assessment
• Center for Epidemiologic Studies–depression

No significant differences existed on any outcome measure. No effect on caregiver esteem was found. Among caregivers with physical problems, those in the treatment group had an increase in lack of family support between interviews 1 and 2 followed by a decrease between interviews 2 and 3. Control group subjects displayed the opposite pattern. Caregivers with physical problems had greater decreases in difficulty with finances than those with no physical problems. Caregivers in the control group had a decrease, whereas those in treatment group did not. No significant effect on depression was found. Caregivers in the control group had a decrease in the effect of providing care on physical health between interviews 1 and 2 and then remained constant between interviews 2 and 3. Caregivers in the treatment group displayed the opposite pattern. The analyses are based on some caregivers who had received nonprotocol home care and were dropped from analyses.

Little information is presented on the details of the intervention. The control group had some contamination (32.4% of the control group and 32.2% of the intervention group received referrals for home care that were not connected with the study). Findings were difficult to interpret.